CAR_Public/020520.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                 Monday, May 20, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 98

                           Headlines

AIRLINE LITIGATION: Travel Agents Launch Suit Over Ticket Commissions
AMERICA ONLINE: Agrees to US$15.5M Settlement of Suit Over 5.0 Software
BORDERS GROUP: Hearing For Class Certification Set For May 22, 2002
CALIFORNIA: Town Uncertain Whether To File Suit Over CCA-Treated Wood
E-FILLIATE INC.: Recalls 12T Extension Cords Due To Electrocution Risk

FITNESS QUEST: Recalls 300T Exercise Machines Due To Injury Hazard
HMO LITIGATION: NJ Doctors Sue Firms For Deceptive Insurance Practices
JC PENNEY: Discovery Proceeds in Suit Over Insurance Coverage in TX
LOCKFORMER CO.: Knew Of Lisle Chemical Spills Earlier, Says Official
MISSISSIPPI: Judge Ponders Class Certification For School Wage Suit

NEVADA: ACLU Files Suit V. Prison Over Inadequate Inmate Medical Care
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Recalls 93T Power Adapters Due To Shock Hazard
SEISMIC SAFETY: Recalls 600 Gas Valves For Fire, Explosion Hazard
SOUTH CAROLINA: Judge Urges Use of Cameras To Stop Sexual Assaults

                         Securities Fraud

CALPINE CORPORATION: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Securities Suit in CA
COINMACH LAUNDRY: Labels "Without Merit" Shareholder Suit in DE Court
COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
DYNEGY INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
EDISON SCHOOLS: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

EXELON INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: LeBlanc & Waddell Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
LANTRONIX INC.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NJ

MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: LeBlanc & Waddell Launches Securities Suit in CA
RELIANT ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
RELIANT ENERGY: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in TX

RELIANT ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
RELIANT ENERGY: Paskowitz & Associates Launches Securities Suit in TX
RELIANT ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in TX
RELIANT RESOURCES: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
RELIANT RESOURCES: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Suit in S.D. TX

SEITEL INC.: LeBlanc & Waddell Launches Securities Fraud Suit in TX
UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
VERISIGN INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
VERISIGN INC.: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
VIROPHARMA INC.: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA

VIROPHARMA INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA

                            *********

AIRLINE LITIGATION: Travel Agents Launch Suit Over Ticket Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian travel agents recently began a class action against a number
of airlines, filed in the Federal Court in Montreal by the Canadian
Standard Travel Agent Registry (CSTAR), alleging that there was a
conspiracy between the airlines and their industry association to
reduce and eliminate travel agent base commissions on ticket sales, the
Globe and Mail reports.

The suit further alleged that the airlines' actions violated Canada's
Competition Act.  The named defendants in the suit are:

     (1) Air Canada,

     (2) American Airlines,

     (3) Delta Airlines,

     (4) Continental Airlines,

     (5) Northwest Airlines,

     (6) United Airlines and

     (7) the International Air Transport Association (IATA).


A spokesman for CSTAR, a Vancouver-based co-operative with 500 members
across Canada, said the lawsuit claims that the airlines conspired as
early as 1995 to eliminate agent commissions.  The lawsuit contends
that IATA helped the airlines by "imposing arcane and discriminatory"
practices that prevented agents from earning commissions on the sale of
tickets involving the services of more than one airline.


Filed on behalf of Canada's 3,700 travel agencies, the class action
claims that by forcing the public to use the airlines' call centers,
Web sites and joint-airline Web sites, the airlines were "preventing
consumers from accessing low fare and best routing advice from
independent travel agents."  The result, says CSTAR, has been higher
travel prices and poorer service.


The class-action lawsuit alleges further that by jointly moving from
reduced base commissions to zero base commissions, the airlines
"conspired to methodically dismantle the travel agency distribution
channel in a plan to exercise monopoly and/or dominant market power
over both the operation and distribution of air transportation."


AMERICA ONLINE: Agrees to US$15.5M Settlement of Suit Over 5.0 Software
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
America Online (AOL) agreed to settle for US$15.5 million a class
action filed in the United States District Court in Miami, Florida by
consumers who complained that the Company's 5.0 software cut off access
to other Internet service providers, the sfchronicle.com reports.

The suit alleges that:

     (1) consumers who installed AOL 5.0 Software had trouble logging
         to rival Internet service providers, when they selected AOL as
         their default Internet program during installation;

     (2) some consumers had trouble connecting to the internet because
         they were using outdated Windows computer operating systems;
         and

     (3) installing the software caused computers to be unstable.

Under the settlement, the Company will pay consumers about $8.1
million, with the rest going mostly to the attorneys.

"We believe the settlement is reasonable and equitable," said AJ De
Bartolomeo, a San Francisco attorney representing the plaintiffs.
Nicholas Graham, a spokesman for America Online, said the settlement is
not an admission of wrongdoing and called his Company's software
reliable. He added that "AOL agreed to resolve these cases to avoid
protracted litigation," according to sfchronicle.com.

The settlement has yet to be approved by the Court.  Consumers
interested in participating in the settlement can visit the Web site:
http://www.50softwaresettlement.com. Claims must be made by Sept. 6.


BORDERS GROUP: Hearing For Class Certification Set For May 22, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco is
scheduled to hear a motion May 22,2002 asking the Court to grant class
certification to an amended lawsuit filed against retail chain Borders
Group, Inc.

The suit, filed on behalf of all current and former employees who
worked as assistant managers in the Company's stores in the state of
California at any time between April 10, 1996, and the present, alleges
that:

     (1) the plaintiffs worked hours for which they were entitled to
         receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation under
         California law; and

     (2) they were classified as exempt store management employees but
         were forced to work more than 50% of their time in non-exempt
         tasks.

The suit further alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
the California Business and Professions Code.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, including
contesting the certification of the action as a class action.


CALIFORNIA: Town Uncertain Whether To File Suit Over CCA-Treated Wood
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Town officials of Davie, Florida, are uncertain whether to bring a
class action against the parties responsible for having supplied the
town with more than 80,000 square feet of pressure-treated
wood, reports the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Pressure-treated wood is wood that has been infused with chromium,
copper and arsenic (CCA) or pressure-treated to prevent rotting.
Studies have shown that the chemicals can leech into the soil over
time, but a study of whether such wood can be hazardous to residents'
health has produced results that are ambivalent, according to
independent state and academic experts.  More extensive and expensive
human health risk assessment tests are needed to determine how
dangerous the sites really are, the experts say.

The law firm of Becker & Poliakoff, based in Fort Lauderdale, persuaded
the town council of Davie to agree to have 10 random sites tested,
sites on which structures using the potentially hazardous wood are
located.  The firm wants to begin a class action against the trio of
corporations responsible for the producers of CCA-treated wood; the
chemical manufacturers, the lumber retailers and wood treaters, all
of whom dealt with the wood.

On April 1, the law firm told Davie town officials that seven of the
sites tested exceeded the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's (FDEP) "residential cleanup target levels."  However, Bill
Hinkley, chief of the state's Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste, said
that the residential numbers FDEP came up with were "meant to be
protective of people who spent time in a residential neighborhood for
20 or 30 years' time, who have lived there continuously."

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced that manufacturers
would stop producing CCA-treated wood by the end of 2003.  The EPA also
stated, however, that there was no reason "to remove or replace CCA-
treated structures, including decks or playground equipment."  Dr.
Helena Solo-Gabriele, assistant professor of environmental engineering
at the University of Miami, said the EPA is trying to figure out a
specific hazardous level for playgrounds with CCA-treated wood.

Dr. David Johnson, with the state's environmental epidemiology
department, said that a panel of physicians has been convened to look
at safety in pressure-treated wood.  "They have not been able to
identify a child's health being hurt due to the wood."

Davie has not yet made a decision whether to join the lawsuit, said
Mayor Harry Venis.


E-FILLIATE INC.: Recalls 12T Extension Cords Due To Electrocution Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-filliate, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 12,000 extension
cords.  The cords have reversed polarity, which can present electric
shock and electrocution hazards to consumers.  The Company has received
one report of reverse polarity, though no one has been injured.

The recalled Ziotek brand extension cords are black and about one to
two feet long.  The letters "MSL" are imprinted on the cord's three-
pronged plug.  The single-receptacle cords have the website,
www.ziotek.com, printed on the cord, while the double-receptacle cords
have the name "ZIO TEK" printed on the splitter.  These extension cords
were manufactured in China.

"Cyberguys" catalogs and the "Cyberguys" website (www.cyberguys.com)
sold the extension cords nationwide from January 2002 through March
2002 for between $2 and $3.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-327-6703 between 7
am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday to receive a prepaid shipping
label to return the cord and to select a free replacement or a full
refund.  Consumers who return the recalled product will also receive a
10 percent discount on a Cyberguys product.


FITNESS QUEST: Recalls 300T Exercise Machines Due To Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitness Quest, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 310,000
Total Gym exercise machines. The handles on these exercise machines can
detach during use and the cable attached to the handles can break,
resulting in injury to the user.

The Company has received about 400 reports of the handles and cables on
these exercise machines breaking, resulting in 30 reports of injuries,
including lacerations and abrasions.

The recall involves the Total Gymr 1000 and the Total Gymr Pro model
exercisers with serial numbers DK000001 through DK129350, models with
the serial number prefixes XO or SM, and models without serial numbers.
The serial number is located on the underside of the machine's glide
board.  The glide board rolls on an inclined track as the user pulls
the hand cords or pushes at the base.  These exercisers were
manufactured in Taiwan, Thailand, and China.

Sporting good stores, web sites, catalogs, and direct sales sold this
exercise machine nationwide from June 1997 through October 2001 for
between $180 and $200.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-321-9236
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.fitnessquest.com


HMO LITIGATION: NJ Doctors Sue Firms For Deceptive Insurance Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Noting their frustration with payment delays and denials from managed-
care companies, the Medical Society of New Jersey, representing 8,000
of the state's 30,000 practicing physicians, filed five separate suits,
in state Superior Court in Trenton, against five major health
management organizations (HMOs) that account for 60 percent of the
managed-care market.

The suits ask in large part, that the court stop the HMOs from engaging
in practices that they allege interfere with patient care, according to
a report by The Record (Bergen County, NJ).  The named health plan
defendants are:

     (1) Aetna US Healthcare,

     (2) Oxford Health Plans Inc.,

     (3) CIGNA Healthcare Inc.,

     (4) HealthNet Inc. (the former PHS Health Plans), and

     (5) AmeriHealth HMO of New Jersey, Inc.

Together, these defendants enroll 1.5 million residents in health-
maintenance organizations.

The society "is willing to spend the time fighting insurers in court so
that physicians can spend their time caring for patients," said Robert
S. Rigolosi, a Teaneck kidney specialist who became president of the
medical society this month.  "More than ever, managed-care companies
threaten the practice of medicine."

New Jersey's physician association became the fifth in the nation,
within a relatively short span of time, to seek court intervention
against managed-care plans, following those in Connecticut, New York,
South Carolina and Tennessee.  All of those cases are pending.  The
society is represented by Edith Kallas of the New York law firm Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in class actions and
prepared the actions by the state medical societies.

However, after 10 years of managed care coverage in New Jersey,
physicians apparently remain as angry and unhappy with its practices as
they were when it began.  Years of trying to "follow the rules" and
enact legislation to protect patients and physicians have yielded only
frustration, Dr. Rigolosi said.

At a Lawrenceville news conference, three physicians gave accounts of
specific cases in which their medical judgment had been questioned and
their claims reduced or denied.  Some patients also attended.

One case example involved a 41-year-old woman from Succasunna.  A
diabetic, she became a patient of Dr. Albert Tartini of Teaneck and
when she needed a kidney biopsy to determine the reason for protein in
her urine after pregnancy, he admitted her to Holy Name Hospital both
before and after the biopsy, to avoid the risk of complications.  The
insurer refused to pay for the hospital stay, because the rules say a
patient should go home after a kidney biopsy.

"I did what was right for that patient," Dr. Tartini said.  "They are
trying to change the way we have been trained to treat the patient."

The lawsuits cite 17 practices that they characterize as deceptive or
which violate state law, and asks the court to bar them.  The suit
mentions the practices, such as:

     (1) the companies arbitrarily overrule physician decisions about
         whether procedures are medically necessary, without reviewing
         the specific cases;

     (2) they use their market share to force physicians into "take it
         or leave it" contracts that infringe on the doctor-patient
         relationship;

     (3) they don't employ enough people to handle the load of
         authorizations or referrals needed by physicians, leading to
         delay.  Doctors, as one of the consequences, must hire
         additional staff to make phone calls;

     (4) they don't explain why claims are denied and use strategies
         such and "downcoding" and "bundling" to reduce reimbursement.

Downcoding changes the billing codes of health services provided to
those of lesser value, while bundling involves issuing a single payment
for several related services.  In addition, the managed-care companies'
computer programs automatically reject or pay less for certain claims,
the lawsuits say.

Oxford Health Plans disputed those claims.  "The facts are exactly the
opposite," said a company statement.  Oxford has "all but eliminated
retrospective denials" of claims and pays doctors and hospitals
according to contract.  In the statement, the Company also emphasized
that it answers questions "in a timely manner," and complies with
external review decisions.  "We accomplished this by engaging the
medical leadership on making quality health care affordable," said Dr.
Norman C. Payson, chairman and chief executive officer.


JC PENNEY: Discovery Proceeds in Suit Over Insurance Coverage in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding a in an amended class action filed against J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. in Corpus Christi, Texas State Court on behalf
of the Estate of Marguerite York and six others.  The suit also names
as defendants:

     (1) J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. (DMS),

     (2) J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company (JCPenney Life),

     (3) Quest Membership Services, Inc.,

     (4) J.C. Penney International Insurance Group, Inc,

     (5) J.C. Penney Telemarketing Inc.,

     (6) AEGON, N.V.,

     (7) AEGON USA, Inc.,

     (8) AEGON Group,

     (9) AEGON Special Markets Group, Inc., and

    (10) Commonwealth General Corporation

The plaintiffs had previously purchased accidental death and
dismemberment insurance coverage from J.C. Penney Life and allege,
among other things:

     (i) that some of them did not agree to buy the coverage;

    (ii) coverage was misrepresented; and

   (iii) benefits were wrongfully denied

The theories of legal liability urged by the plaintiffs are violations
of the:

     (a) Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act,

     (b) Texas Insurance Code,

     (c) fraud,

     (d) negligent misrepresentation,

     (e) breach of contract,

     (f) unjust enrichment, and

     (g) gross negligence

The Court is allowing plaintiffs to conduct discovery to determine
whether they have a legitimate basis for including the defendants,
other than JCPenney Life, as parties.  The Company intends to
vigorously oppose the suit.


LOCKFORMER CO.: Knew Of Lisle Chemical Spills Earlier, Says Official
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A high-ranking official of Lockformer Co., in Lisle, Illinois,
testified recently in a trial of a federal class action, filed by 186
homeowners, that Company officials have known since 1985 that
potentially dangerous spills were occurring at its Ogden Avenue plant,
the Chicago Tribune reported recently.

The class action claims that the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), that
contaminated their wells came from the Lockformer plant.  The suit
names as defendants:

     (1) Met-Coil Corporation, the Company's parent division,

     (2) Mestek Inc., the Company's parent company, and

     (3) Honeywell International, the owner of the Company's former
         chemical supplier.

Rian Scheel, vice president and general manager of the Company, said he
told the US Environmental Protection Agency last year that Company
officials became aware in 1985, six years earlier than they had
previously acknowledged, that spills occurred when chemicals
were being delivered.  Those spills occurred from March 1969 through
June 1999, he said.

Mr. Scheel also testified that the Company waited nine years before
contacting the state EPA in 1994 about the issue, at which time it
joined the agency's site remediation program.

Under questioning by the homeowners' attorney, Shawn Collins, Mr.
Scheel noted that a 1993 lawsuit filed by the Company against the
supplier also mentioned that spills occurred "for years."  That suit,
which was later settled for $800,000, also asserts the spillage
threatened the safety of the general public and could impact the
groundwater beneath the building.

Mr. Scheel also testified that he had written a 1998 confidential memo
to the then-president of the Company stating there was soil groundwater
and off-site contamination from the releases, and the longer the TCE
sat on the site, "the greater the concern."

"Isn't it true that for 33 years this TCE was permitted to stay there
and remains there to this day?" Mr. Collins asked.  "That is correct,"
Mr. Scheel responded.

The Company, said Mr. Scheel, was told early on by consultants that
there was impermeable clay soil under the spill site.  So, the Company
did not "feel an urgency if the soil was like a bathtub to those
chemicals," he said.

Mr. Collins, the plaintiffs' lawyer, also questioned Mr. Scheel about
an agreement the Company made with the state stemming from a January
2001 lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan's office.   In
the pact, made a few days before the start of the trial, the Company
agreed to hook up residents in the class action who are on wells to a
public water supply.

Company attorneys said last week that the Company entered into the
agreement because its latest consultant discovered six months ago that
sewers were leaking at the far south end of its property, near the
homes of those in the designated class.

Under questioning by Company attorney Dan Biederman, Mr. Scheel
testified that it was only through his investigation of the spills
after becoming Vice President in 1997, that he learned that an employee
was aware in 1985 about releases by the supplier.  After a safety
training seminar on TCE that year, the employee told management.  The
Company then enacted a policy that a maintenance person had to be on
the roof whenever the tank was being filled, in order to let the
supplier know when to stop feeding the chemical into the tank.

Mr. Scheel also testified that management was not aware of a possible
larger problem from the releases until 1991, when a plumber digging
around a leaking pipe smelled the solvent in the ground.


MISSISSIPPI: Judge Ponders Class Certification For School Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A state district judge recently heard arguments on whether a lawsuit
over school salary supplements should involve all East Feliciana Parish
taxpayers and all current and former East Feliciana Parish School Board
employees, The Baton Rouge Advocate recently reported.  A trial in the
case is scheduled for September 11, 2002.

Four people; a property owner, a retired school employee, an employee
who left the school system for a reason other than retirement and a
current employee, filed the suit in September 2000.  The lawsuit
alleges the School Board failed to pay its employees all of the sales
and property tax money dedicated to salaries.

The petition asks the court to certify it as a class action on behalf
of the four groups represented by the original plaintiffs.  The lawsuit
wants the School Board to pay back wages for current employees and
recalculate benefits for retirees.

Twentieth Judicial District Judge Wilson Ramshur denied a School Board
motion to dismiss the class action claim because the four plaintiffs
did not file it in a timely manner.  Judge Ramshur did say, however,
that he would rule on whether to allow the case to become a class
action after reviewing the law and the attorneys' written arguments.

There were questions from employees as to why salary supplements had
not increased over about a 12-year period although the tax revenues
dedicated to salaries had increased.


NEVADA: ACLU Files Suit V. Prison Over Inadequate Inmate Medical Care
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched a class action
against the Clark County Detention Center, alleging its inmates failed
to receive adequate medical care, RGJ.com reports.  The suit is pending
in the United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada against:

     (1) Clark County,

     (2) Jerry Keller, the County's sheriff,

     (3) the Las Vegas Police Department,

     (4) Prison Health Services, Inc., the contract jail medical
         provider, and

     (5) Dr. Harvey Hoffman, jail physician

The suit claims systemic neglect in medical care at the detention
center and arose four years after a federal Justice Department report
cited overcrowding, inadequate care for inmates with physical and
mental illness, poor sanitation and inadequate supervision at the
center, RGJ.com reports.

The suit further alleges that inmates with chronic diseases such as
diabetes, cancer, heart disease, hepatitis, asthma and HIV receive
inadequate treatments.  When inmates file grievances, they are
allegedly denied access to necessary forms or are retaliated against.
Inmates with mental health problems "are often simply warehoused"
without medication or psychotherapy, the suit added.

"We're out of the realm of individual allegations of bad behavior,"
Gary Peck, ACLU of Nevada executive director, told RGJ.com.  "We're
arguing that the whole.system is broken and the whole.system needs to
be fixed."

The defendants declined to comment on the suit.  "If there is pending
legal action against the department, we're not going to be able to
comment," Lt. Vincent Cannito, department spokesman told RGJ.com.

Robert Langford, lawyer for the 10 male inmates, said he believes his
clients and others being held at the downtown Las Vegas jail continue
to suffer pain and injury because medical care is routinely denied.
"It's cruel and unusual punishment," Mr. Langford said.  "Just the
basics of health care have been denied over and over and over again."



PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Recalls 93T Power Adapters Due To Shock Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Philips Electronics is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 93,000 speaker power
adapters sold with Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) business desktop computers.
The speaker power adapter's power cord connector is not grounded,
posing a potential shock hazard to consumers.

The Company received one report of a Philips speaker power adapter plug
that was not grounded which was discovered by a consumer during an
electrical inspection. No injuries have been reported.

The speaker power adapters were included in HP's P1534A External
Amplified Speaker sets.  There is a label on the bottom of the speakers
with the model number "P1534-60001."  The package includes a black
rectangular power adapter, which is about 3-inches high, 2-inches wide
and 2-inches long. The adapter has two permanently attached power
cords, one that connects to the light or dark gray speakers and a "T-
junction" plug that connects to the computer.  The speaker power
adapter has "Model D12-1-A-950" and "Made in China" printed on a white
label on the power adapter.

HP and business computer retailers sold personal computers with the
speaker power adapters nationwide mostly to businesses.  Some of these
businesses then sold the computers to employees for personal use.  HP's
web site also sold the powered speakers and adapters with HP business
desktop computer bundles, as well as packaged individually.  The
adapters were sold between October 2000 and April 2002 for about $34.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-870-7193 between 8
am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday for a free replacement speaker
power adapter, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.phillips.com/us


SEISMIC SAFETY: Recalls 600 Gas Valves For Fire, Explosion Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seismic Safety Products Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling approximately
600 Earthquake gas shut-off valves.  These gas valves could stick in
the open position allowing gas to flow freely, which poses a risk of
serious injury to consumers from fire and explosion during an
earthquake.  The Company has not received any reports of incidents.
This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recalled Northridge 2000 Earthquake Valves are about 3-1/2 inches
wide by 2-1/2 inches high by 2 inches deep.  The valves' bodies are
made of aluminum and are coated with a blue color.  The recalled
valves have a white reset knob in the front that reads, "Northridge
2000 Valve" and a white label on the back that reads in part, "Models
M75 (or M100), ASCE 25-97, RR#5370, CSA-OSA, 2 PSI Max Gas Flow."
These valves were manufactured in the United States.

The Company sold the valves to plumbers in the Olympia, Tacoma, and
Seattle, Wash. areas from February 2001 through April 2001 for between
$200 and $300.  The Company also sold these valves on their website at
http://www.seismic-safety.com

For more details, contact the Company by Mail: Pacific Aerospace &
Electronics, Inc., 430 Olds Station Road, Wenatchee, WA 98801 or by
Phone: 800-948-3782 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday
to have their shut-off valve replaced free of charge.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Judge Urges Use of Cameras To Stop Sexual Assaults
------------------------------------------------------------------
The state's juvenile detention centers need $1.1 million in
surveillance cameras to stop sexual assaults and misconduct among
incarcerated teen-agers, US Judge Joseph Anderson says, The Associated
Press reports.  Judge Anderson urged state leaders to buy the cameras
despite state budget cuts.  "It seems to me it is a relatively
inexpensive way to hold down violence."

Judge Anderson called a hearing to review the Department Of Juvenile
Justice's response to safety and other issues involved in a 12-year-old
class action alleging overcrowding, physical abuse and inadequate
medical care.  Judge Anderson, who has presided for 12 years over this
lawsuit that alleges unconstitutional conditions, criticized the
state's spending of money on a study that made what he said were
generic suggestions.

"Do we really need to spend money to get wishy-washy recommendations
like `bring the stakeholders together'," the Judge said, reading from
the 2001 study that cost $139,000.  The Judge suggested, instead, that
the state hire more correctional officers and train them better,
especially regarding when it is permissible to use force on young
inmates.

State Rep. Robert Harrell, Chairman of the House budget committee, said
it is too late to find new funding for the budget that begins in July.

"I would expect the Department of Juvenile Justice to move forward in
the direction of Judge Anderson's comments, and if it requires
additional funding to come to the Legislature and tell us what they
need," he said.

It was reported earlier this year that the state paid $1.1 million in
the last two years to settle nine claims and lawsuits alleging children
as young as 10 years old had been sexually assaulted by other juveniles
in state detention facilities.  State legislators have been looking
into the allegations.

Juvenile Justice Director Gina Wood assured Judge Anderson that she,
Governor James Hodges and legislators are doing what they can to meet
safety standards while absorbing $10.9 million in budget cuts the past
two fiscal years. She said sexual assaults and violence at youth
facilities are down.  An agency spokeswoman said that $89,000 has been
spent to put cameras in four new facilities and a few in the older
major centers in Columbia.

However, Gaston Fairy, a Columbia lawyer who represents juveniles who
have sued the agency, told the judge that sexual and physical assault
on juveniles continue "on a regular basis."  He said that he is
collecting evidence that agency officials are "covering up those
incidents."

                            Securities Fraud

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

The complaint 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 prospectus supplement (which was part of the
registration statement) further issuing the 2011 Bonds and 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), the Company's inflation of its publicly reported
revenues due to the manipulation of certain transactions with Enron
Corporation and were contained in public filings with the SEC which
were incorporated by reference in the registration statement and
prospectus supplement.  These statements and omissions caused the price
of the 2011 Bonds to become artificially inflated.

For more information, contact Gary S. Graifman by Mail: 747 Chestnut
Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge NY 10977 by Phone: 800-660-7843 by Fax:
845-356-4335 or by E-mail: KGG@kgglaw.com


COINMACH LAUNDRY: Labels "Without Merit" Shareholder Suit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Coinmach Laundry Corporation (CLC) faces a class action filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for Newcastle County against the Company
and:

     (1) Golder, Thoma, Cressey, Rauner Fund IV, LP, its indirect
         general partner,

     (2) GTCR Golder Rauner LLC and

     (3) certain of its executive officers

The suit alleges that the defendants' proposal to acquire between 80%
and 90% of the Company's common stock for $13.00 per share was
inadequate and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the
Company's public shareholders.

The defendant's time to respond to the complaint has been adjourned
indefinitely by agreement of the parties.  Given that such acquisition
proposal was not accepted by the Company, the Company believes this
suit is without merit and that the ultimate disposition of such action
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.


COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed without prejudice the consolidated securities
class action pending against Commtouch Software, Inc. on behalf of all
investors who bought the Company's common stock between April 19, 2000
and February 13, 2001.

The complaint accuses the Company and two of its top officers of
inflating the Company's stock price by issuing false and misleading
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2000.  The suit
alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's financial statements.

The Company expects that the plaintiffs will file an amended complaint.
While the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated suit, it believes the suit is without merit and intends to
continue to vigorously defend against it.


DYNEGY INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) and four of its senior
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period between April 1, 2001 and April 24, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The suit alleges that the Company, one of the world's leading energy
traders, and four of its senior officers, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially
false and misleading financial statements concerning the Company's cash
flow from operations.

In particular, the Company omitted to state material information in
those financial statements that were necessary to make such statements
not misleading.

As alleged in the suit, the defendants entered into a series of secret
financial transactions with shell corporations, referred to as "Project
Alpha," which were actually disguised loan transactions, and which were
used to artificially inflate its reported cash flow operations by $300
million for the year 2001.

Defendants' misuse of these transactions to inflate its reported cash
flow from operations was a serious violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

On April 25, 2002, prior to the market's opening, the Company shocked
the investing community by announcing that after consultation with the
staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Company
would file an amended Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001,
reducing operating cash flow from $811 million to $511 million, a
decrease of approximately 37%.

These disclosures caused the Company's stock to plummet nearly 30% by
the end of trading on April 25, 2002.

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


EDISON SCHOOLS: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Edison
Schools, Inc. (Nasdaq:EDSN) common stock from November 10, 1999 through
May 14, 2002.

The suit charges the Company, its auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
(PWC), and its chief executive officer and chief financial officer,
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The violations, as the complaint alleges, stem from the
materially false and misleading statements made by the defendants
during the class period that misrepresented the Company's business,
operations and financial performance and caused its 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
apprised 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 more particularly alleged in the complaint, 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, it 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,
its shares traded as low as $2.50 per share.

For more details, contact Ramon Pi¤on by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th
Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
rpinoniv@whhf.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.whhf.com


EXELON INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of Exelon
Corporation (NYSE: EXC) common stock during the period between April
24, 2001 and 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 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


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, on
behalf of all open market purchasers of the common stock of Gerber
Scientific Inc. during the period of May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Marc T. Giles,

     (2) Michael J. Cheshire,

     (3) George M. Gentile,

     (4) Shawn M. Harrington,

     (5) Anthony L. Mattacchione and

     (6) Gary K. Bennett

The suit charges Defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit alleges that between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002, the
Company's business suffered from a combination of weakening currencies
and implementation problems with new products. In an attempt to capture
new markets, the Company decided to diversify its business and
undertook a campaign to acquire new companies. Pursuant to its
acquisition campaign, the Company secured credit facilities from
institutions across the world. Despite its attempts to expand its
business, the Company still suffered from weak demand for its products.

However, in order to maintain favorable terms under the credit
agreements, the Company used false and misleading accounting techniques
to obscure from creditors the true extent of its faltering business
plan, which misled investors who purchased the Company's common stock.

On April 15, 2002, the Company announced in a press release it expected
to take a special pre-tax charge of approximately $12 million in the
fourth quarter ending April 30, 2002.  The same day Company announced
it was conducting an internal review of its financial reporting for the
period beginning January 1, 1998, through the current fiscal year,
which ends April 30, 2002.

The Company announced the review had been undertaken in response to an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into
Gerber's inventory and reserve accounting practices.  When news of the
pre-tax charge and SEC investigation reached the market, investors
reacted by rapidly selling the Company's stock, causing the price of
that stock to fall dramatically.

For more information, contact Emily C. Komlossy or Henry J. Young by
Mail: 100 Park Avenue 12th floor New York, NY 10017 -5563 by Phone:
212-907-0700 by E-mail: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com or hyoung@glrslaw.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: LeBlanc & Waddell Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LeBlanc & Waddell LLC initiated a securities class action against
Gerber Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:GRB), accusing the Company and several
top officers of defrauding investors, in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut.  The suit seeks damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
bought the Company's common stock from May 27, 1999 through April 12,
2002.

The complaint states that the Company issued materially false and
misleading information to the public during the class period,
artificially inflating the price investors paid for company stock.

The plaintiff claims that the Company, a supplier of automated
manufacturing systems, repeatedly touted the MAXX system's success in
the marketplace when in reality the product was defective.  As a result
of problems with the MAXX product and the economic downturn, the
Company knowingly or recklessly allowed inventory at its Sign Making
and Specialty Graphics group to build up, the complaint says.

In addition, according to the complaint, the Company failed to properly
write down the backlog or establish appropriate reserves in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.

The problems came to light on April 15, 2002, the complaint continues,
when the Company revealed that it expected to take a $12 million charge
in the fourth quarter of 2002 composed principally of inventory write-
downs.

At the same time, the Company announced an internal review of its
financial reporting from January 1, 1998 through the current fiscal
year. The internal review, the company revealed, came in response to a
Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of the Company's
inventory and reserve accounting practices and related disclosures.

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

For more details, contact Roger LeBlanc or Chad A. Dudley by Mail: 5353
Essen Lane, Suite 420, Baton Rouge LA 70809 by Phone: 800-988-3514 or
by E-mail: rogerleblanc@lw-law.net


LANTRONIX INC.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of purchasers of Lantronix, Inc. (NASDAQ:LTRX) securities between April
25, 2001 and February 6, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by deliberately
inflating the price of the Company's stock through a series of false
and misleading public statements concerning the Company and its
financial results in press releases and reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The suit alleges that defendants
engaged in improper revenue recognition practices throughout the class
period.

On February 6, 2002, the Company issued a press release disclosing that
it would retroactively record a charge to its 1Q 2002 financial
results, miss its forecasts for 2Q 2002, and lower its outlook for 3Q
2002 and fiscal 2002, due to a purported change in its method of
accounting for revenue.  Shortly thereafter, the Company terminated the
employment of Steven Cotton, its Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct,
plaintiff and other members of the class suffered damages.

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


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

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between November 9, 2001 and February 15,
2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common
stock.

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

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

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross launched a securities class
action charging Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER) and its former
Internet research analyst Henry M. Blodget with issuing false and
misleading analyst reports about 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (Nasdaq:TFSM).
The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of 24/7 during the period from February 18, 2000 through November
9, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants' research
reports and ratings on 24/7 were neither independent nor objective, but
instead were biased and improperly influenced by Merrill Lynch's
lucrative investment banking business relationships with this important
client.

In order to maintain and enhance Merrill Lynch's investment banking
relationships with 24/7, defendants issued positive ratings on the
Company which were materially misleading as they were inconsistent with
their own contemporaneous, private adverse assessments of 24/7.

For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short and long-term
accumulate rating on 24/7 despite Mr. Blodget's internal description of
24/7 as a "piece of crap."

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market
price of 24/7 common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or
stabilized during the class period.

On April 8, 2002, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
announced that a ten-month investigation had revealed that Merrill
Lynch's "supposedly independent and objective investment advice was
tainted and biased by the desire to aid Merrill Lynch's investment
banking business."  Merrill Lynch's ratings on 24/7 were among those
challenged by the Attorney General.

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody commenced 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 24/7 Real Media, Inc.
(NASDAQ:TFSM) between February 18, 2000 and November 9, 2000, inclusive
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former star Internet research
analyst, Henry M. Blodget, who are charged with issuing misleading
analyst reports about 24/7.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch and Mr. Blodget participated
in a scheme to manipulate the market price of 24/7 common stock.  The
scheme was perpetrated by defendants through the issuance of inflated
ratings and biased research reports for 24/7 common stock.

The defendants' scheme with regard to 24/7 common stock was part of a
larger scheme whereby Merrill Lynch research analysts in the internet
group, under pressure from Merrill Lynch's investment bankers, would
initiate, continue and/or manipulate research coverage to maintain and
attract investment banking clients.

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

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

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

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

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: LeBlanc & Waddell Launches Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LeBlanc & Waddell LLC initiated a securities class action against
Peregrine Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRGN), claiming that the company
inflated its stock price by misleading the public.  The suit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common
stock from July 19, 2000 through May 3, 2002.

The complaint accuses the Company, a San Diego-based software company,
of misleading investors about its business and finances by improperly
recording revenue it later wrote off.

The suit states that news of the problems surfaced May 6, 2002, when
the Company disclosed an internal investigation into potential
accounting inaccuracies in fiscal 2001 and 2002, revealing revenue
recognition irregularities that could total up to $100 million.  In the
same statement, the Company announced the resignations of Stephen
Gardner, the company's chief executive officer, and Matthew Gless, its
executive vice president of finance.

Following the May 6 announcement, the Company's stock plummeted 65% to
a 52-week low of $0.89.

For more details, contact Roger LeBlanc or Chad A. Dudley by Mail: 5353
Essen Lane, Suite 420, Baton Rouge LA 70809 by Phone: 800-988-3514 or
by E-mail: rogerleblanc@lw-law.net


RELIANT ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP lodged a securities class action against Reliant
Energy Inc. (NYSE:REI) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
from August 2, 1999 through 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.  The suit alleges that, throughout the class
period, defendants violated Section 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, thereby
inflating the price of Company securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and
annual financial performance.  The suit alleges that these statements
were false and misleading because, among other things, the Company's
revenue were materially overstated because:

     (1) its subsidiary Reliant Resources, Inc. engaged in transactions
         with other power traders to buy and sell power to each other
         simultaneously and at the same price and

     (2) the Company improperly recorded revenue from these
         transactions.

On May 10, 2002, it was announced that Reliant Resources was canceling
a $500 million private placement debt offering and disclosed that it
had engaged in roundtrip transactions.  The price of its parent
company, Reliant Energy, dropped from $24.60 on May 9, 2002 to a low of
$15.87 on May 14, 2002.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian 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


RELIANT ENERGY: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas-Houston
Division on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
Reliant Energy, Inc. (NYSE:REI) and Reliant Resources, Inc. (NYSE:RRI)
(collectively, the Reliant Companies) in the period from May 14, 1999
through May 9, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the two
companies and certain of their officers and/or directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
representations concerning the financial results of the Reliant
Companies throughout the class period.

On May 10, 2002 and May 13, 2002, defendants disclosed that the revenue
of the Reliant Companies had been artificially inflated due to power
trading transactions involving simultaneous purchases and sales at the
same price (referred to as "round-trip" trades).

Defendants further disclosed that these "round trip" trades had the
effect of materially and artificially increasing reported revenues over
the three-year period of 1999, 2000 and 2001.

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


RELIANT ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action against Reliant
Energy Inc. (NYSE: REI) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
from August 2, 1999 through May 10, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  The suit alleges that, throughout
the class period, defendants violated Section 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,
thereby inflating the price of Company securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and
annual financial performance.  The suit alleges that these statements
were false and misleading because, among other things, the Company's
revenue were materially overstated because:

     (1) its subsidiary Reliant Resources, Inc. engaged in transactions
         with other power traders to buy and sell power to each other
         simultaneously and at the same price (roundtrip transactions)
         and

     (2) the Company improperly recorded revenue from these
         transactions.

On May 10, 2002, it was announced that the Company was canceling a $500
million private placement debt offering and disclosed that it had
engaged in roundtrip transactions.  The price of its parent company,
the Company, dropped from $24.60 on May 9, 2002 to a low of $15.87 on
May 14, 2002.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian 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


RELIANT ENERGY: Paskowitz & Associates Launches Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Reliant Energy, Inc. (NYSE: REI)
between August 2, 1999 and May 10, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
against the Company and:

     (1) R. Steve Ledbetter,

     (2) Stephen 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, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The suit alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements
about itself and about its 82%-owned subsidiary, Reliant Resources,
Inc., during the class period which inflated revenues due to power
trading transactions involving simultaneous purchases and sales at the
same price (referred to as "round-trip" trades).

Defendants further disclosed that these "round trip" trades had the
effect of materially and artificially increasing reported revenues over
the three-year period of 1999, 2000 and 2001.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz by Phone: 800-705-9529 or
by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com.


RELIANT ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
Reliant Energy, Inc. (NYSE: REI) and Reliant Resources, Inc. (NYSE:
RRI) from May 14, 1999 through May 9, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names
the two companies and certain of their individual officers and/or
directors as defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
representations concerning their financial results throughout the class
period.

On May 10, 2002 and May 13, 2002, defendants disclosed that the revenue
of the Reliant Companies had been artificially inflated due to power
trading transactions involving simultaneous purchases and sales at the
same price (referred to as "round-trip" trades).

Defendants further disclosed that these "round trip" trades had the
effect of materially and artificially increasing reported revenues over
the three-year period of 1999, 2000 and 2001.

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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC 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.

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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf all persons who purchased the common stock of Reliant Resources
Inc. (NYSE:RRI) in the period between April 30, 2001 and May 13, 2002,
including those persons who purchased shares in the initial public
offering of the Company's common stock.

The suit charges the Company, its auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP, the
underwriters of its IPO, and its chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, and chief accounting officer, with violations of
Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The violations, as the complaint alleges, stem from the materially
false and misleading statements made by the defendants during the class
period that misrepresented the Company's business, operations and
financial performance and caused its stock to trade at artificially-
inflated prices.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, the Company
inflated its publicly reported revenues through sham "round-trip"
energy trading in which it purchased and sold the exact same amount of
energy at the exact same price.  The complaint alleges, and the
Company's chief executive officer has admitted, that there is "no
apparent reason for doing these transactions other than to enhance
volume" and revenue.

As the complaint alleges, the Company has admitted that such "round-
trip" trading inflated its publicly reported revenues by approximately
10% during 1999, 2000 and 2001, and inflated its trading volume by as
much as 25% during this period.

The complaint alleges that the inflated and publicly reported revenue
and trading figures misrepresented the Company's real revenues, growth
rate, and market share and acceptance.  As a result, the complaint
alleges, Company shares traded at inflated prices based on such
publicly reported, but misleading, figures and investors who purchased
shares at such inflated prices were damaged thereby.

When the Company admitted the existence and extent of such round-trip
trading, its shares lost approximately 40% of the their value, falling
from $14.49 per share on May 9, 2002 to close trading on May 14, 2000
at $8.70 per share.

For further details, contact Ira M. Press 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


SEITEL INC.: LeBlanc & Waddell Launches Securities Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LeBlanc & Waddell LLC initiated a securities class action against
Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI) and several of its top officers, accusing them
of pumping up the company's stock price by improperly recording
revenue.  The suit was filed 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 complaint, the Company and the individual defendants
materially misrepresented the Company's financial results for 2000 and
2001 by improperly recognizing revenues.  Most of the improper revenue,
the complaint says, was attributable to the Company's undisclosed
practice of recording revenue for the licensing of its seismic data and
other geophysical information before delivering data to customers.  The
practice ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles and
artificially inflated the Company's stock price during the Class
Period, the complaint says.

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

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

By the time the Company further detailed the restatements on May 3,
2002, 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 information, contact Roger LeBlanc or Chad A. Dudley by Mail:
5353 Essen Lane, Suite 420, Baton Rouge LA 70809 by Phone: 800-988-3514
or by E-mail: rogerleblanc@lw-law.net


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois-Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Universal Access
Global Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: UAXS) common stock during the period
between May 10, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the suit 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 suit 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 its
reported revenues.

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


VERISIGN INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 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) securities during the
period between January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002, inclusive.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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."

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone:
212-213-6222 by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.nyclasslaw.com.


VERISIGN INC.: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm 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 January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint 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 laces 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 the Company's 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 Tanya Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


VIROPHARMA INC.: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
ViroPharma, Inc. (Nasdaq: VPHM) and certain of its principal officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's securities between July 13, 1999 and March 19,
2002.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of the evidence of the
efficacy of Picovir in reducing the duration and severity of symptoms
of the common cold.

On March 19, 2002, trading was halted as the Company revealed that an
FDA Advisory Committee was deciding whether to recommend FDA approval
of its cold treatment, Picovir.  The Committee voted 15-0 not to
recommend approval. On March 20, 2002, after the resumption of trading,
the market price of Company stock plummeted 60 percent.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


VIROPHARMA INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of ViroPharma, Inc. (Nasdaq: VPHM)
publicly traded securities during the period between July 13, 1999 and
March 19, 2002, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
888-551-9944 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *