CAR_Public/020521.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Tuesday, May 21, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 99

                             Headlines

ARIZONA: Governor Hull To Decide on Home Building Defects Legislation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Talks Toward Asbestos Suits Resolution Progressing
CALIFORNIA: Petaluma City To Pay $100,000 Over Illegal Towing Fees
EXERCISE EQUIPMENT: Suit Commenced Over False "Exercise Belt" Claims
FLORIDA: $4.6M Acid Spill Settlement To Help Clean Up Alafia River

GOODY'S FAMILY: Vigorously Opposing Discrimination Suit in M.D. FL
INDIAN FUNDS: Indian Tribes Oppose Overhaul of Bureau of Indian Affairs
KENTUCKY: High Court Rules Blocks Department of Parks Temps Wage Suit
LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Soil Pollution Stopped Land Sale Five Years Ago
MBTI BUSINESS: Nine Students Sue Over Fraudulent Practices, Advertising

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: CA Court Advertising Fraud Suit Certification Pending
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Court Allows Lawyers To Take Part in Settlement
PARK PLACE: Appealing $25.2M Award in Reno Hilton Viral Outbreak Suit
SULZER MEDICA: 120 Patients To Opt Out Of Implants Suit Settlement
TREASURY DEPARTMENT: Faces Possible Consolidated Discrimination Suit

WYOMING: Conditional Certification Granted to Inmate Assaults Suit


*Rise of Joint Suits in UK Prompts Probe of Law Firm's Effectiveness

                           Securities Fraud

AIRGATE PCS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
ALCATEL SA: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ALCATEL SA: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ALLIED CAPITAL: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: TX Court Permits Assets Sell-Off Without Oversight

AQUILA INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. MO
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CMS ENERGY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
CMS ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
EAGLE BUILDING: Asks For More Time To Respond To NV Securities Suit

EDISON SCHOOLS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: MD Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit

INTERNET CAPITAL: NY Court Orders Consolidated Nine Securities Suits
LANTRONIX INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
L90 INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SALOMON SMITH: Klayman & Toskes Pursues Securities Claims in NY Suit

SALOMON SMITH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TURBODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit for $7.9M in C.D. CA
TUT SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Nix Patterson Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Meet To Discuss Securities Suit
                             
                            *********

ARIZONA: Governor Hull To Decide on Home Building Defects Legislation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A bill that provides a formal process for fixing construction defects
in new homes is on its way to Governor Jane Hull for her signature,
according to an Associated Press report.   The House gave final
approval to the bill, HB 2620, on a 53 to 3 vote.  The Governor must
now decide whether to sign it into law.

If the bill does becomes law, homeowners in Arizona would have to give
builders 90 days to fix defects in their newly-built homes before they
could sue the builder.  If either side does not follow the process set
forth in the legislation, this fact could be used against them in
court.

Homeowners with a safety or life-threatening problems could still elect
to go straight to court.  A homeowner has up to eight years to file a
complaint.  And the legislation also requires that the builders inform
new home buyers in bold print that the state Registrar of Contractors
is available to arbitrate complaints.

Additionally, if a case does go to court, the prevailing side will be
awarded fees for attorneys, experts and other reasonable expenses.

The proposal sent to the Governor by the Arizona legislature attempts
to resolve construction defect problems that have generated anger and
frustration during Arizona's rapid population growth.  It also tries to
provide home builders a way to avoid the class actions they fear, by
making repairs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Talks Toward Asbestos Suits Resolution Progressing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. and Halliburton Co. officials say they are
making progress in talks with asbestos plaintiffs on a plan to resolve
the bulk of their asbestos-related litigation through other companies'
bankruptcy proceedings, reported Dow Jones Business News recently.

Hopes for their success were boosted when PPG Industries Inc. announced
it had reached an agreement with claimants on a similar plan.  The
cases for all three companies are being handled by the same federal
bankruptcy court in Pittsburgh.  A stay on the litigation is in effect
until the matters relevant to the plan are decided.

In PPG's case, plaintiffs agreed to allow the Company to funnel all its
personal-injury asbestos claims through a bankruptcy trust established
in the Chapter 11 reorganization of building-materials maker Pittsburgh
Corning, in which PPG owns a 50 percent stake.  In exchange, PPG would
fund the trust with $2.7 billion in cash, stock and insurance.  The
court must still approve the plan.

Some observers view PPG's success as a positive sign for Honeywell and
Halliburton in that plaintiffs and their attorneys are willing to
negotiate.  Like PPG, both Honeywell and Halliburton want to take
advantage of bankruptcy laws to bring finality and predictability to
their mushrooming asbestos litigation.

Earlier this year, the two Companies paid Austrian industrial
conglomerate RHI AG a total of $260 million to take units formerly
owned by the two companies into bankruptcy proceedings.  The units, now
owned by RHI, formerly made asbestos products, and have generated the
biggest part of both Companies' liability.  This pattern is the
foundation for how the plan works.

Halliburton proposed contributing its $2.1 billion in insurance to a
trust fund that would handle claims against both Halliburton and its
former unit, Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.  Meanwhile, Honeywell
proposed contributing its $1.2 billion in insurance to a trust fund
that would handle all lawsuits stemming from  products made by its
former unit, North American Refractories Co., known as Narco.  That
was just the starting point for discussion.

Under the law, the Companies need to win approval for their plans from
75 percent of the claimants.  Negotiations will focus on nailing down
the amount of money for the trust, and where it will come from.

Halliburton is also proposing similar piggyback solutions to take place
in a Delaware court for another of its asbestos litigations.  The
Companies' efforts to piggyback on other companies' bankruptcy
proceedings are likely to meet considerable resistance from some
plaintiff attorneys.  

PPG is a shareholder in Pittsburg Corning, making its case much
different from Halliburton and Honeywell, whose links to the bankrupt
companies are less obvious, says plaintiffs' attorney Steven Kazan, who
is a member of both Companies' claimants committee.  Therefore, while
PPG's plan will still face its own challengers, plaintiff attorneys are
likely to be even tougher on Halliburton and Honeywell.

"It comes down to price in the end," said Mr. Kazan.  "The plaintiffs'
bar is split between those who think that if Halliburton and Honeywell
put up enough money, we could make a deal, and those, like me, who
think we should just draw a line and say, `There is not enough money to
get you out of this'."

The law clearly allows for related parties to share in the protections
of bankruptcy law if they can prove certain shared interests, said
David Bernick, a litigator representing companies who have declared
bankruptcy because of asbestos litigation.  He noted that the law is
designed to give companies closure when they have mounting debts, and
that there is a growing argument that "if it's a vehicle for closure,
why shouldn't it be used more liberally to resolve litigation for a
company that's not in Chapter 11?"


CALIFORNIA: Petaluma City To Pay $100,000 Over Illegal Towing Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Petaluma, California may have to refund as much as $100,000
following a recent court ruling against its towing fee assessed against
unlicensed drivers, The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA) reports.  The
fee is now scrapped, but Petaluma is facing separate legal challenges
to its current towing charges.

Ruling on a challenge to the old fee, Judge Knoel Owen said the city
lacked legal authority to assess a $60 impound fee on top of a $65
administrative fee to release vehicles that were towed because the
driver lacked a valid license.  The plaintiffs who filed the complaint
against the city have asked Judge Owen to certify the case as a class
action, which could make the city liable for hundreds of refunds.  City
officials have not decided whether to appeal the ruling or contest
class action status.

Russell Kimberly of Petaluma filed the lawsuit in 2000, challenging the
fee he paid to recover his car after it was impounded for 30 days.  Mr.
Kimberly said he did not challenge the amount of the fee, but argued
that state law does not permit the city to charge multiple fees for
impounding a vehicle.  Mr. Kimberly's car was impounded because he was
driving without a license.

Petaluma added the $60 impound fee for unlicensed drivers to the $65
administrative fee in 1996.  It replaced both in 2000 with a single
$253 towing and storage fee.  In his written ruling, Judge Owen wrote
that the state Vehicle Code "does not establish a separate . fee."

If Judge Owen approves the suit as a class action, the city will have
to reimburse anyone who paid the fee over a period ranging from one to
three years, depending on what he decides the statute of limitations is
in the case.  The amount of the refunds could range from $27,000 to
$100,000, not including interest, an estimate based on data the city
provided on the number of people towed.

Attorneys for the city argue that the state Vehicle Code permits cities
to charge a separate fee for vehicles impounded from drivers without
valid licenses.  They also argue that as a charter city, Petaluma has
the right to charge whatever fees it sees as necessary to recoup
municipal costs.


EXERCISE EQUIPMENT: Suit Commenced Over False "Exercise Belt" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The marketers of an electronic belt that allegedly creates a muscular
midsection face a class action, claiming their promises are worthless,
the Associated Press reports.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Electronics Distribution,

     (2) Abflex USA Inc.,

     (3) AB Energizer and

     (4) Energizer Products Inc. of Tarzana, California

The suit, filed on behalf of a Camden County, New Jersey, woman and
others who bought the battery-powered AB Energizer, comes 10 days after
the Federal Trade Commission filed similar lawsuits against its
marketers and the purveyors of two other similar belts.  

The belts cost $40 to $120 and have earned the companies about $100
million so far, the FTC said.  They are sold mainly through the 30-
minute informercials on national cable television stations.

The government lawsuits and the Camden action charge that the claims
are false and that the companies often have failed to provide timely
refunds despite "money back guarantees."  The lawsuits all seek refunds
for consumers of the belts, and a halt to advertisement containing
false claims.  The belts are supposed to stimulate abdominal muscles,
making them stronger and tighter without strenuous exercise.

The proposed New Jersey class action could give purchasers triple
refunds, under the state's Consumer Fraud Act, said Philip Stephen
Fuoco, a lawyer involved in the suit.  

A message seeking comment, left at the San Diego offices, was not
immediately returned.  No listing could be found for the Tarzana
Company, the Associated Press reports.


FLORIDA: $4.6M Acid Spill Settlement To Help Clean Up Alafia River
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More than four years after a berm break sent about 54 million gallons
of acidic water gushing into the Alafia River, government officials are
poised to approve a $4.6 million settlement.  However, the class action
brought by attorney Alan Wagner on behalf of about 175 people and
businesses is still pending, according to a report by the Tampa
Tribune.  The berm break occurred at a phosphate gypsum stack on
December 7, 1997.

Hillsborough County's Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) is the
first to take up the settlement offer from the insurance company of the
now defunct Mulberry Phosphates, the fertilizer processing company that
a judge ruled in July 2000, to be responsible for the damages.  EPC
said the proposal would reimburse the regulatory agencies $1 million
for costs in the case, leaving $3.6 million for restoration projects.  
The money is to be paid over five years.

Restoration projects being considered include an 18-acre freshwater
marsh to be created in Polk County for $2.3 million.  The
remaining funds could be spent on building a 4-acre saltwater marsh
near the mouth of the Alafia and an oyster reef in Tampa bay.

Karen Wagner, who lives along the river in Valrico said that claims in
the pending class action range from losses in home sales to loss of
enjoyment of the river.

In February 2001, Mulberry Phosphates filed for bankruptcy protection
and abandoned the plant.  Last week, the state announced a plan to turn
the processing facility over to neighboring Cargill Fertilizer in
exchange for Cargill's piping away the acidic water and closing the
gypsum stack.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Vigorously Opposes Discrimination Suit in M.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. vows to vigorously oppose a class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia by 20 plaintiffs, alleging that the Company discriminated
against their African-American employees.  The suit also names as
defendant Robert M. Goodfriend, the Company's Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer.

The suit alleges that the Company discriminated against a class of
African-American employees at its retail stores through the use of
discriminatory selection and compensation procedures and by maintaining
unequal terms and conditions of employment.  The plaintiffs further
allege that the Company maintained a racially hostile working
environment.

The plaintiffs' claims are being brought under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The plaintiffs are seeking to have this action certified as a class
action, but only as to the issue of promotions.

The Company is disputing these claims.  However, the Company is unable
to estimate the effect, if any, the above lawsuit may have on its
financial position or results of operations.


INDIAN FUNDS: Indian Tribes Oppose Overhaul of Bureau of Indian Affairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A coalition of Indian tribes from across the Pacific Northwest opposed
the federal government's plan to reorganize the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), saying the overhaul is a "quick fix.that will only make
matters worse and cost more money in the long run," the Spokesman-
review.com reports.

Several Indian tribes have filed a class action against the US Interior
Department and the BIA, over royalties from the Indian's tribal lands.  
The suit alleges that the government owes the Indians at least US$10
billion in royalties.  The suit is pending before Federal Judge Royce
Lamberth, who has repeatedly expressed his contempt for the
department's seeming inability to keep track of the funds and come up
with a solution to the mess.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton has proposed an overhaul, but the
Indians have rejected this strongly.  "We think that as tribal people
we should have been consulted in the reorganization of the bureau,"
Ernie Stensgar, chairman of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and president of
the Affiliated Tribe of Northwest Indians, told Spokesman-Review.com.   
"Each administration thinks they know how to change it.We offered up
BIA officers who had worked on a grass-roots level. But they didn't
listen."

The tribes reportedly favor creating regional offices with oversight
from a national commission, instead of overhauling the bureau, the
Spokesman-Review.com reports.


KENTUCKY: High Court Rules Blocks Department of Parks Temps Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal workers who claim they were promised virtually full-time jobs
with the Department of Parks cannot sue to enforce oral contracts, the
Kentucky Supreme Court ruled recently, the Associated Press reported.

The 5-to-2 ruling reversed the Court of Appeals, which had reinstated
part of a class-action lawsuit in Franklin County Circuit Court.  The
intermediate court said the workers should have a chance to present
written evidence of their contracts if they have such evidence.  The
Supreme Court disagreed.  "Even if such documents exist, they cannot be
construed as constituting a written employment contract," Justice
Donald Wintersheimer wrote for the majority.

The case dates back to 1993, when the Department of Parks began
requiring temporary construction and maintenance workers to sign
acknowledgments that they could work no more than nine months per year.  
Otherwise, they would qualify for state retirement.

The workers claimed they were promised 11 months of work per year.  The
Franklin County Circuit Court ruled that the department could not be
sued over an oral contract, even if the workers could prove such a
promise was made.  Justice Wintersheimer agreed.

The General Assembly authorized the parks commissioner to hire
temporary employees, but "it did not authorize the commissioner to
convert them into merit system employees, and he had not statutory
authority to do so," the opinion said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice James Keller said the majority "puts
the cart before the horse" by determining the nature of the jobs "and
then concluding that a contract saying anything different would have
been unauthorized."

Justice Janet Stumbo joined in the dissent.  Joining Justice
Wintersheimer in the majority were Chief Justice Joseph Lambert and
Justices William Cooper, Bill Graves and Martin Johnstone.


LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Soil Pollution Stopped Land Sale Five Years Ago
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Lockformer Company had to opt out of a sale of company
land five years ago because of soil contamination, a company official
testified recently, the Chicago Tribune reported.

James Heitt, president of Met-Coil, a division that includes the
Company, said the main reason the US$1 million sale of 12 acres of
company land was canceled was the presence of trichloroethylene (TCE).  
This testimony came on the seventh day of a trial of a class action
brought by 186 homeowners who live near the plant in Lisle, Illinois.  
They are suing the Company, along with its parent, Mestek, Inc. and the
Company's former chemical supplier, for damages after TCE was found in
wells supplying the homes with drinking water.

Mr. Heitt's testimony appeared to contradict what Company officials
told the public in 2000.  In a video shown in court, a Company attorney
told the Lisle Village Board that the land could be developed and only
a small amount was contaminated.  Mr. Heitt testified, however, that
both sides in the deal knew of a consultant's report that noted the
TCE contamination.  It was because of the contamination that the
contract included a buy-back clause.  The main reason the Company
had to honor that clause was the TCE contamination.

However, Mr. Heitt said, "The bottom line was we were told the TCE was
not migrating off the site, nor would it."

Before the trial, however, a judge ruled that the plant was the source
of the TCE found in the residents' wells.

Dr. Roy Ball, an environmental expert specializing in industrial
pollution, estimated that as much as 6,000 gallons of TCE, a possible
carcinogen, had spilled into the ground at the plant between 1969 and
1985.  Under cross-examination, Mr. Ball agreed that groundwater from
about a dozen monitoring wells in the property's bedrock layer did not
contain TCE.  He also testified that his opinions were based in part on
data gathered by several different consultants over a decade.


MBTI BUSINESS: Nine Students Sue Over Fraudulent Practices, Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nine students sued the MBTI Business Training Institute, claiming the
school that was fined $588,000 by the federal government engaged in
deceptive business practices and false advertising, The Associated
Press reports.  

The suit alleges that MBTI and its former president, Donald J. Brun,
committed fraud in the operation of the school, and seeks class action
status, which would enable other students enrolled at the school
since June 2000 to join the case.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants:

     (1) accepted student tuition, federal grants and loans, but failed
         to provide the educational programs that were promised;

     (2) falsely advertised the nature and quality of the courses
         offered, the school's success rate in placing students in jobs
         and the instructors' qualifications;

     (3) knew that courses did not qualify for federal financial
         assistance; and

     (4) falsified records on services and instruction provided to
         students.

Federal agents took over the offices and classrooms at MBTI last month,
searching documents and books.  The US Department of Education had
informed the for-profit school that it was suspending its eligibility
for federal financial aid, while fining the school $588,000 because of
alleged discrepancies in its handling of government dollars, namely,
that the school:

     (i) used financial aid money for students ineligible for those
         funds;

    (ii) failed to pay refunds of loans on time after students
         withdrew;

   (iii) submitted false certifications concerning payment of refunds
         and retention of aid money; and

     (iv) at one point, owed more than $600,000 to the government.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: CA Court Advertising Fraud Suit Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego has yet to
decide whether the lawsuit against The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. can
proceed as a class action.  The suit alleges several causes of action,
each based on the factual allegation that the Company advertised and
sold men's slacks at a marked price that was exclusive of a hemming fee
for the pants.

The Suit seeks:

     (1) permanent and preliminary injunctions against advertising
         slacks at prices which do not include hemming;

     (2) restitution of all funds allegedly acquired by means of any
         act or practice declared by the Court to be unlawful or
         fraudulent or to constitute unfair competition under certain
         California statutes;

     (3) prejudgment interest;

     (4) compensatory and punitive damages;

     (5) attorney's fees; and

     (6) costs of suit.

The suit also requests similar causes of action and requests for relief
based upon allegations that the Company's alleged "claims that (it)
sell(s) the same garments as department stores at 20% to 30% less" are
false and misleading.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and the allegations
are contrary to customary and well-recognized and accepted practices in
the sale of men's tailored clothing.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend the suit.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Court Allows Lawyers To Take Part in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed lawyers who negotiated a
US$97 million settlement in a class action filed against software giant
Microsoft Corporation on behalf of its "permatemp" employees to take
nearly US$27 million dollars of the settlement, the Associated Press
reports.

The suit was commenced more than a year ago on behalf of about 12,000
former employees who alleged they were hired as temporary or contract
workers so that the Company could avoid paying them benefits.

The ruling paves the way for payout to commence.  


PARK PLACE: Appealing $25.2M Award in Reno Hilton Viral Outbreak Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Park Place Entertainment will appeal a $25.2 million judgment which a
Washoe County jury awarded in a class action negligence suit to
hundreds of Reno Hilton guests who became ill during a viral outbreak
at the hotel-casino, The Associated Press Newswires reported.  Washoe
County District Judge Steven Elliott presided over the three-week long
trial.

The punitive damages were warranted, the jury recently decided, because
the hotel-casino, owned by Park Place, acted with malice and fraud.  
More than 600 guests and 300 employees were stricken by the outbreak of
the gastrointestinal virus , which had been traced, in part, to sick
workers on the job at the Reno Hilton, health officials said.  The
virus causes nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, among other symptoms.  
Twenty persons were treated at Washoe Medical Center, but none was
admitted.

The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a
report at the time that 55 percent of Reno Hilton employees who
reported being ill did not take time off from work during their
illness.  The hotel-casino did not have paid sick leave for all
employees.  The CDC report said further that the spread of the sickness
slowed when Reno Hilton encouraged workers to remain home for 48 hours
after full recovery.

Robert Stewart, a spokesman for Park Place in Las Vegas, said the
Company would appeal the ruling.  "The Reno Hilton believes that the
verdict in the civil litigation involving a 1996 incident at the hotel
is not supported by the evidence at the trial," he said in a statement.
Mr. Stewart said that the Reno Hilton maintains a safe and clean
environment for its workers and its guests. The appeal, he said, would
be filed with the Nevada Supreme Court.


SULZER MEDICA: 120 Patients To Opt Out Of Implants Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
About 120 patients who experienced faulty hip and knee replacements
plan to opt out of a $1 billion settlement in a class action filed
against Sulzer Medica, according to the Associated Press, by patients
who received faulty hip and knee implants produced by the Company.

The suits commenced after the Company recalled 40,000 hip implants and
withdrew some knee implants in December 2000.  The implants allegedly
were not bonding properly to their bones.  Later, the Company
determined that oil residue on the hip and knee implants caused the
problem.

Parent company Sulzer Medica, located in Switzerland, said recently
that it will negotiate to reduce the number of patients opting out of
the settlement.  The Company's lead counsel, Richard Scruggs, has said
that patients who choose to pursue litigation independently could
bankrupt the Company.

Over 3,500 patients are covered by the settlement.  Those who got the
implants replaced without complications will each receive about
$200,000 under the settlement.  The payment will be higher for patients
with complications.  About $40,000 of each patient's share will go
toward attorney fees.

Ohio Federal Judge Kathleen O'Malley approved the settlement last week
following a two-day hearing.


TREASURY DEPARTMENT: Faces Possible Consolidated Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Department of the Treasury faces a potential class action suit
filed by its black and Hispanic employees alleging discrimination in a
variety of employment practices, the New York Times reports.  

The suit, which could possibly be one of the largest class actions
against the federal government, is expected Friday in the federal
court.  The suit will consolidate two other cases; the suit against the
Customs Service filed by Hispanic agents, and the suit against the
Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms filed by
black agents.  The class members in the suit against the Treasury
Department include more than 1,000 agents in the department's three
major law enforcement bureaus.

According to the New York Times, the suit alleges that the plaintiffs
were subjected to pervasive discrimination in a variety of employment
practices, including hiring, training and performance evaluations, and
that they were blocked from special assignments, promotions and awards.

An earlier Class Action Reporter story states the suit filed against
the Customs Service by its Hispanic agents alleges that the federal
law-enforcement agency has engaged in a pattern of racial
discrimination against Hispanic agents nationwide dating back to the
early 1970s, the San Antonio Business Journal reports.  

Meanwhile, the suit involving the black Secret Service agents was
originally filed in 2000.  The case was already settled for a total of
US$5.9 million in 1996, however, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the suit
say the agency has yet to make good on the terms of the agreement.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs agree that consolidating the three cases is
the most efficient way to present the cases and would prevent
inconsistent rulings.  In addition to claims against individual
agencies, the combined case lodges a broader charge of systemic
discrimination and a "good old boy" network that permeates the Treasury
Department, the New York Times reports.

"All through the Treasury there exist these common areas of
discrimination, as well as an atmosphere of retaliation against agents
who file complaints," David J. Schaffer, counsel for the three groups
of agents told the Times.  "This represents the first time minorities
are coming together to say we're not going to take it anymore."

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office,
said the department was "reviewing the plaintiffs' motion and will be
filing an appropriate response soon."  She added, "It would be
inappropriate to comment further at this time."


WYOMING: Conditional Certification Granted to Inmate Assaults Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Clarence Brimmer has conditionally
certified class action status for a lawsuit that claims the Wyoming
Department of Corrections has "turned a blind eye" to inmate-on-inmate
attacks at the State Penitentiary, The Associated Press reported
recently.

In granting conditional certification for class-action status, Judge
Brimmer said he was doing so largely to allow more discovery in the
case.  The conditional class action will be reconsidered during a
hearing September 12.

Inmate Brad Skinner claims he was seriously hurt when other inmates
beat him up, and is asking that prison guards be required to insure
that inmates are protected against unprovoked assaults by other
inmates.  By pursuing class action status, Mr. Skinner is attempting to
get all current and future inmates at the Rawlins prison involved in
the lawsuit.

"We are challenging policies," said Mr. Skinner's attorney, Stephen
Pevar, of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.  Mr. Pevar
said at a recent court hearing that prison officials did not
investigate whether staff made mistakes in handling the attack on Mr.
Skinner.  He also said that a lack of policy for such cases has led to
deaths and serious injuries.  The lawsuit also claims that prison
officials have done nothing to fix problems caused by lack of staff and
inmate overcrowding.

Arguing on behalf of the Corrections Department, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Steven Czoschke, said a class action is unnecessary
because Mr. Skinner's attorneys can get the information they need
without it.  The foundation for Mr. Skinner's complaint is based on the
findings from a 1999 US Department of Justice report, according Mr.
Czoschke.

The Department of Justice has criticized conditions at the prison.    
The Corrections Department and the Justice Department subsequently
reached an agreement for the improvement of inmate conditions.
Subsequently, the Justice Department agreed to drop a lawsuit against
the Corrections Department so long as the conditions are met.  This
agreement, said Mr. Czoschke, resolved the concerns raised in Mr.
Skinner's lawsuit.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Corrections Director Judith Uphoff,

     (2) Prison Complex Administrator Vance Everett,

     (3) security officer James Hewitt,

     (4) security officer David Ebell, and

     (5) unnamed security officers


*Rise of Joint Suits in UK Prompts Probe of Law Firm's Effectiveness
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the joint suit, as it is called in the United Kingdom, result in
investors winning real compensation, or does it just end up in the
lawyers' coffers?, the Sunday Telegraph asks.  

The financial scene these days is not complete without a host of action
groups, law firms and consumer champions offering to fight the good
fight on behalf of angry investors or policyholders.  The Telegraph
notes some of the British firms that have been threatened with legal
action in recent years, including Equitable Life, Independent Insurance
and Railtrack, are some of the biggest firms in the country.  Now fund
managers, stockbrokers and financial advisers, embroiled in the split
capital investment trust saga, face being put in the dock.

Two law firms representing disgruntled investors, Class Law and Leon
Kaye, sent claims letters last week to a number of split capital
investment trust firms.  The split-cap debacle is the latest scandal
rocking the financial world as thousands of ordinary investors have
each lost hundreds of pounds after investing in the trusts, which they
believed were low-risk investments, the Telegraph revealed.

Class Law, a small London-based firm with just four partners, has not
been shy in coming forward with its offers of help.  Its PR machines,
says the newspaper, has been running on overdrive, in order to drum up
support for this latest battle.  The amount of publicity being whipped
up has led to suggestions that the solicitors are cashing in on the
investors' anger.

The credentials of the various firms moving forward to do battle also
have been called into question.  As one insider from the Financial
Services Authority pointed out last week, "You might want to ask how
many cases have they won?"

"I cannot understand such suggestions.  We turn down more cases than we
take on," said Stephen Alexander, the co-founder of Class Law.  "Just
because you have lost money doesn't mean you have the right to
complain.  I have turned down potential cases for Enron and Marconi."

Leon Kaye has hit back at suggestions that it lacks credentials in
class action.  "We have been successful on several occasions in the
past - we have never lost an action yet," said Leon Kaye, the senior
partner.

Class Law admits that whipping up publicity may give the wrong
impression but it says that it has no choice.  It needs to stir up
support because England's legal system will only allow group
litigation.  "One of the fundamentals of class action in England is
that you need a group of people prepared to come together so you have
some muscle," said Mr. Alexander.  "Publicity, therefore is very
important.  If you do not get the message out, the action will fall."

"We do not have the same type of legal actions as they do in the United
States.  In England, you need to pursue a group litigation order, but
in  the US you can start a class action with just one client.  In
England, the loser pays the winner's costs, but in the US you do not.  
This means the little man can take on the big man without financial
risk," he added.

Class Law is a mite defensive on the question of how many cases it has
won since it was formed four years ago.  It credits itself with a
victory in 1998, when Royal Life changed the terms of the proposed
merger of its life fund with SunAlliance, reports the Telegraph.

"We have only just started.  There has been very little of consequence
in the past few years," said Mr. Alexander.  "You have to create
evidence for the barrister to plead a case.  I cannot make things
happen any faster.  You need an open dialogue between group members and
this takes time."

Mr. Alexander cites the fact that the main drawback for investors who
decide to pursue a class action in the courts is that, under the
English system, you cannot then go to the Financial Ombudsman Service
(FOS) if you lose your case.  If, on the other hand, you go to the FOS
at the outset and you lose, you still have the option of going to
court.

Taking up a complaint with the FOS is free of charge, while solicitors
will charge a one-off administration fee at the very least.  There may
also be additional costs such as an insurance premium which would pay
for the opponent's legal costs if you lose your case, explains the
Telegraph.

The ombudsman stipulates that it will make a decision within six months
of the complaint being made while a class action can take years to be
resolved.

Mr. Kaye says that he does not have much confidence in the FOS dealing
with a complaint within that timeframe.  "I sent a large ring-bound
binder on behalf of clients to them in February, and I have had not as
much as an acknowledgement," he says.

                            Securities Fraud

AIRGATE PCS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Airgate PCS, Inc.
(Nasdaq:PCSA) securities in the Company's public offering on or about
December 14, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, against the Company and:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market in the Company's December 14, 2001 Prospectus, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

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


ALCATEL SA: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of:

     (1) shareholders who acquired who purchased the American
         Depositary Shares (ADSs) of Alcatel relating to its Class O
         common shares (NASDAQ:ALAO) in or traceable to the initial
         public offering of the ADSs (intended to track the performance
         of the Company's Optronics Division) conducted by the Company
         on or about October 20, 2000, and

     (2) all persons other than defendants who purchased Alcatel's
         Class A common shares (NYSE:ALA) and Class O common shares in
         the form of ADSs between October 20, 2000 and May 29, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company, Serge Tchuruk (Chairman and
CEO) and Jean-Pierre Halbron (President and CFO).

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially inaccurate and misleading statements and/or by
failing to disclose material information to the market in the October
20, 2000 prospectus for the sale of Alcatel Class O stock in the form
of American Depositary Shares (ADSs).

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


ALCATEL SA: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of:

     (1) all persons other than defendants who purchased the American
         Depositary Shares (ADSs) of Alcatel SA relating to Alcatel's
         Class O common shares (NASDAQ:ALAO) in or traceable to the
         initial public offering of the ADSs conducted by Alcatel on or
         about October 20, 2000;  and

     (2) all persons other than defendants who purchased Alcatel's
         Class A common shares (NYSE:ALA) and Class O common shares in
         the form of ADSs between October 20, 2000 and May 29, 2001.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against the Company, Serge Tchuruk (chairman and
CEO) and Jean-Pierre Halbron (president and CFO).

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a false
and misleading prospectus on October 20, 2000, and by making material
misrepresentations to the market between October 20, 2000 and May 29,
2001.

The complaint alleges that on October 20, 2000, the Company issued a
prospectus for the sale of Class O stock in the form of American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) that purportedly would track the performance
of its Optronics Division.  The prospectus was materially false and
misleading, as alleged in the complaint, because it failed to disclose:

     (i) that demand for the Company's optical components was weakening
         as the Company and the Optronics Division's other customers
         were experiencing severe and persistent business slowdowns;

    (ii) that the purportedly increasing demand for the Optronics
         Division's optical components was the result of a massive
         inventory build at the Optical Division's primary customer,
         the Company, and at the Company's external customers;

   (iii) that the Company was amassing hundreds of millions of dollars
         of obsolete inventory which would have to be written-off; and

    (iv) that in light of the decreasing demand for optical components,
         the Company was not in a position to successfully promote
         sales of all product lines to outside customers.

Subsequently, on May 29, 2001, the Company issued an unexpected and
severe profit warning and separately announced that it expected to
report a second-quarter loss of approximately $2.6 billion. Following
this announcement, the price of Company Class O common shares, in the
form of ADSs, declined by 11% from a closing price of $21.26 on May 29,
2001 to a closing price of $18.92 on May 30, 2001.  Similarly, the
Company's Class A common shares, in the form of ADSs declined by 8.8%
from $27.14 to 24.74.

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


ALLIED CAPITAL: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who acquired the common stock of Allied Capital Corp.
(NYSE:ALD) between November 14, 2001 and May 16, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) William L. Walton, President, Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Penni F. Roll, Chief Financial Officer, and

     (3) Arthur Andersen LLP

The complaint alleges that defendants misstated the value of the
Company's investments in companies including, inter alia, Velocita
Corp. and Loewen Group, Inc. in the Company's public filings with the
SEC and otherwise as a result of failing to "mark to market" or record
write-downs of investments that had substantially declined in value
long after it had become apparent that such investments were being
carried on the Company's books at values vastly higher than their true
values.

The complaint further alleges that the Company misstated its total
assets in its financial statements by carrying its investments
including Velocita Corp. and Loewen Group, Inc. on its balance sheet at
unrealistically and misleadingly high values.

The complaint further alleges that Arthur Andersen, LLP violated the
federal securities laws by certifying the Company's financial
statements and by allowing its unqualified opinion to be incorporated
by reference into the Company's filings with the SEC after it was
readily apparent that investments on the Company's balance sheet,
including its investments in Velocita Corp. and Loewen Group, Inc.,
were being carried at unrealistically and misleadingly high values.

When the foregoing was revealed to the market on May 16, 2002, the
complaint alleges, Company share price plummeted from its opening price
of $26.44 to as low as $20.00 before closing at $23.20.

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart,
Christopher J. Gray, or Zachary R. Fadem by Phone: 212-608-1900 by E-
mail: classaction@lovellstewart.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.lovellstewart.com


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: TX Court Permits Assets Sell-Off Without Oversight
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Andersen LLP will be able to continue selling parts of its
business without court supervision, because it is legitimately
mitigating losses suffered by an eroding client base, United States
District Judge Melinda Harmon ruled recently, according to a report by
the Houston Chronicle.  

Explaining the basis of her ruling, Judge Harmon said, "Andersen's
efforts to dissolve and downsize appear to be designed to preserve, not
diminish, resources from which the plaintiffs may recover."  Finding
the sell-off of assets legitimate, Judge Harmon, therefore, denied
requests for an injunction from two plaintiffs in the Enron class
actions, the University of California and American National Insurance
Company at a recent hearing.  The hearing on the requested injunction
had been postponed several times as the parties in the class actions
tried unsuccessfully to reach settlement.

In their motions, the plaintiffs said they wanted the injunctions in
order to keep Andersen from selling off parts of its US business or
international affiliates until the judge had reviewed the deals and
plaintiffs' lawyers had the opportunity to raise objections.  Andersen
argued, in response, that about 100 deals now in the works could
unravel if the court had to approve them first.  Andersen attorney
Daniel Kolb said that Andersen's chances of surviving, even as a
smaller firm depend on getting immediate value for its biggest assets -
its people, who can help the firms that have picked up Andersen's ex-
clients.

Judge Harmon, after hearing the parties, said that "Andersen currently
has more accountants than it has work or, in other words, more costs
than it has revenue.  Considering its present situations, Andersen is
faced with little choice but to scale back operations in proportion to
its diminished client base."

Judge Harmon ruled that an injunction would delay those cost
reductions.  She wrote further that she had seen no evidence of
wrongdoing or bad faith by Andersen.


AQUILA INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Aquila, Inc. (NYSE:ILA)
securities during the period between April 25, 2001 and December 3,
2001, inclusive in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and UtiliCorp United, Inc. (the Company's controlling
shareholder).

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

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


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities fraud class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company (NYSE:BMY) securities between April 20, 2000 and March 19,
2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The suit alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated materially false and
misleading statements regarding Vanlev, a new drug for the treatment of
hypertension, causing the price of Company securities to be
artificially inflated.

For more details, contact Henry J. Young by Phone: 212-907-0700 or by
E-mail: hyoung@glrslaw.com


CMS ENERGY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired CMS Energy Corporation
(NYSE:CMS) securities during the period between August 3, 2000 and May
10, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and:

     (1) William T. McCormick Jr. (Chairman and CEO),

     (2) David W. Joos (President and Chief Operating Officer) and

     (3) Alan M. Wright (Chief Financial and Administrative Officer)

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

For more information, contact Charles J. 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


CMS ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of CMS Energy Corp.,
(NYSE: CMS) between August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002 inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against the Company and:

     (1) William T. McCormick Jr. (Chairman and CEO),

     (2) David W. Joos (President and Chief Operating Officer) and

     (3) Alan M. Wright (Chief Financial and Administrative Officer)

The complaint 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 August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company had, throughout the class
period, improperly recognized approximately $4.4 billion in revenues by
engaging in transactions lacking any economic substance using what are
known as "round-trip" trading transactions.  

The improperly recognized revenues were, according to the complaint,
reported in the Company's quarterly and annual press releases and in
financial filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
throughout the class period.

On May 10, 2002, the Company announced that the SEC was investigating
the propriety of its "round-trip" trading practices. In response to the
announcement, its common stock price collapsed, falling from a high of
$20.06 on May 10, 2002 to a low of $15.72 on May 13, 2002--a drop of
more than 21% on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more information, 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: cmsenergy@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com  


EAGLE BUILDING: Asks For More Time To Respond To NV Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Buildings Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada for an extension of the time to allow
them to respond to several securities class actions filed against the
Company and certain of its officers.  

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between
April 18, 2001 and February 14, 2002, charges the defendants with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit alleges that as a result of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's products, operations and financial
results, Company securities traded at artificially inflated prices
during the class period.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
revealed that it is continuing to work with its outside auditors,
Tanner + Co., to restate the above-referenced financial statements and
to complete its financial statement for the period ending December 31,
2001.


EDISON SCHOOLS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Edison Schools
Inc., (NASDAQ: EDSN) between November 11, 1999 and May 14, 2002
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and:

     (1) Chris Whittle (President and CEO),

     (2) Adam Field (Chief Financial Officer) and

     (3) Christopher Cerf (Chief Operating Officer)

The complaint 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 11, 1999 and May 14, 2002.

Throughout the class period, the Company issued numerous quarterly
press releases reporting its supposedly growing revenue stream and
increasing income. Such representations were repeated in reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

According to the complaint, these representations were materially false
and misleading because the company was improperly recognizing revenue
by recognizing as revenue monies that were remitted to their clients,
comprised of school districts and charter schools, even though the
Company did not receive this money.  Accordingly, the complaint
charges, the Company's revenues and other financial data reported
throughout the class period were materially false and misleading.

On May 14, 2002, the Company revealed that it had been the subject of
an SEC investigation and has entered into a settlement with the SEC
under which it agreed to reclassify the revenues that the Company had
reported for numerous quarters. At the time of the disclosure, the
common stock of the Company was trading at $1.50 to $2 per share, after
reaching a class period high of $36.75 per share.

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


EDISON SCHOOLS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of persons who acquired Edison Schools, Inc.
(Nasdaq:EDSN) securities between November 11, 1999 and May 14, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and:

     (1) H. Christopher Whittle,

     (2) Christopher D. Cerf,

     (3) Adam Feild and

     (4) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

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

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


EDISON SCHOOLS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Edison Schools, Inc. (Nasdaq:EDSN) on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased the Company's common stock between
the period of November 11, 1999 through May 14, 2002.

The suit alleges that the defendants, including the Company's auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, made material misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts concerning the Company's financial
condition and business performance during the relevant time.

According to the complaint, 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 and a May 14, 2002 SEC cease and desist order forced the
Company to admit to these actions.

For more details, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Diana Steele by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: afriedman@cmht.com or
dsteele@cmht.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.cmht.com


EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
refused to dismiss the amended consolidated securities class action
filed against Emulex Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from January
18,2001 through February 9,2001.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  

The Company has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
order, which was scheduled for May 6, 2002.

As a result of the federal suit, a number of derivative cases were
filed in state courts in California and Delaware, and in federal court
in California, alleging that certain officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection
with the events alleged in the class action lawsuits.

The derivative cases filed in California state courts have been
consolidated in Orange County and plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended complaint on January 31, 2002.  The defendants have filed
demurrers to the complaint, which are scheduled for May 10, 2002.

The derivative suit in Delaware was dismissed on August 28, 2001. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss or stay the California federal
derivative action and, on March 15, 2002, the court ordered that
further proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of the class
action lawsuit described above.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without legal merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  However, because the lawsuits are
at an early stage, it is not possible to predict whether the Company
will incur any material liability in connection with such lawsuits.


HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: MD Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of the District of Maryland dismissed
the consolidated securities class action pending against Humphrey
Hospitality Trust, Inc. (NASDAQ:HUMP), and certain of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of purchases of the Company's common
stock from November 14,2000 through March 29,2001.

The suit arose from five lawsuits originally initiated from April
through June 2001 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  The suits alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  
The suits were later transferred and consolidated in Maryland federal
court.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and
operations and artificially inflated the market price of the Company's
securities during the class period.  In November 2001, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  

"We are very pleased with the court's ruling and remain committed to
vigorously defending against any further claims should an appeal be
filed," Randy Whittemore, Humphrey Hospitality Trust's President and
CEO said in a press statement.

The plaintiffs may appeal the Court's dismissal by filing a notice of
appeal on or before June 6, 2002.


INTERNET CAPITAL: NY Court Orders Consolidated Nine Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated the nine securities class actions pending against Internet
Capital Group, Inc., certain of its former directors and certain of its
present and former officers and underwriters, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The suit, filed on behalf of present and former stockholders of the
Company, generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on, among other things:

     (1) the dissemination of statements allegedly containing material
         misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions
         received by the underwriters of the initial public offering
         and follow-on public offering of the Company; and

     (2) the failure to disclose the existence of purported agreements
         by the underwriters with some of the purchasers in these
         offerings to buy additional shares of the Company's stock
         subsequently in the open market at pre-determined prices above
         the initial offering prices.

The suits were ordered consolidated for pre-trial purposes (together
with other issuers and underwriters) before Judge Shira Scheindlein in
the Southern District of New York.  In April 2002, a consolidated,
amended complaint was filed against these defendants which generally
alleges the same violations and also refers to alleged misstatements or
omissions that relate to the recommendations regarding the Company's
shares by analysts employed by the underwriters.


LANTRONIX INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Lantronix, Inc.
(Nasdaq:LTRX) securities between April 25, 2001 and February 6, 2002,
inclusive and those shareholders who traded in their Synergetic Micro
Systems, Inc. or Premise Systems, Inc. shares for Lantronix shares
during the class period.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.  The action charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market and engaging in improper revenue recognition
practices throughout the class period which statements and conduct had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. 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


L90 INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, on behalf of purchasers of L90, Inc.
(NASDQ: LNTY) common stock between October 26, 2000 and March 12, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants overstated revenues and assets in
2000 and that during the first, second and third quarters of 2001, L90
violated both generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and SEC
rules by undertaking in improper bartering transactions with
HomeStore.com and its customers. As a result, revenues and assets were
significantly overstated.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendants had misrepresented
the Company's true financial health and future scenario in order to
artificially raise the price of its stock.  The Company would be later
sold to a third party prior to filing its 10-K, due on March 31, 2002.

However, on February 4, 2002, the Company revealed that the SEC gave
notice of an investigation into the Company.  Then, on May 6, 2002, the
Company announced its intention to restate its results for 2000 and
2001. The restatement will result in 2000 revenue being reduced from
$51.953 million to $48.714 million and the nine months ended September
2001 being reduced from $27.196 million to $22.170 million.

For more details, contact Fred T. Isquith, Michael Miske, George Peters
or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to L90.  


LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, 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 the common stock of Light Management Group,
Inc. (OTCBB:LMGR) common stock during the period between June 9, 1999
and November 20, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing 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.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, 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.
Independent Auditor Defendants, 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:

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

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

     (3) misclassifying inventory as capital equipment;

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

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

     (6) 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 the Company's 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 details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


SALOMON SMITH: Klayman & Toskes Pursues Securities Claims in NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Klayman & Toskes, PA, representing numerous employee stock option plan
participants throughout the Technology and Telecommunications
industries in securities arbitration suits, continues to pursue claims
on its clients' behalf against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. ("Salomon")
for alleged unlawful conduct.

Recently, a securities action requesting class action certification has
been initiated in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all clients of Salomon who purchased
the common stock of WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM) between May 15, 1999
and April 21, 2002.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman by Phone:
888-997-9956 by E-mail: dhuff@nasd-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nasd-law.com


SALOMON SMITH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, 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 the common stock of WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq:
WCOM) common stock between May 15, 1999 and April 21, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and its star
telecommunication analyst, Jack Grubman, with violating sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the issuance of
analyst reports regarding WorldCom which recommended the purchase of
WorldCom common stock and which set price targets for WorldCom common
stock without any reasonable factual basis.

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

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

For more details, contact 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


SALOMON SMITH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM) common
stock during the period between May 15, 1999 and April 21, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and its star
telecommunication analyst Jack Grubman with violating sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the issuance of
analyst reports regarding WorldCom which recommended the purchase of
WorldCom common stock and which set price targets for WorldCom common
stock without any reasonable factual basis.

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

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

For more details, contact 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


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

Cohen Milstein is involved in five similar suits against Merrill Lynch
and its internet analyst Henry Blodget.

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

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

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Gail Regina by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
gregina@cmht.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.cmht.com


TURBODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit for $7.9M in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. agreed to settle for US$7.9 million the
consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of
its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

The consolidated suit asserted claims for violation sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 thereunder.  
In addition to Turbodyne, the defendants included Edward Halimi, Leon
Nowek and Walter Ware, each of whom is one of the Company's former
directors and officers.  The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from March 1,1997
through January 22,1999.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages arising from alleged
misstatements concerning such matters as the technological capability
and actual and potential sales of the Company's TurbopacT products and
the Company's demand and acceptance of the products.  The plaintiffs
allege that these misstatements caused the price of the Company's
common stock to be artificially inflated during the class period.  

The agreed terms of settlement provide for a stipulated judgment
against the Company in the amount of US$7.9 million.  As a result, all
the claims against the Company and its co-defendants will be dismissed.  
The settlement has been submitted to the court for approval.


TUT SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tut Systems, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of a purported class of people
who purchased the Company's stock during the period between July 20,
2000 and January 31, 2001, alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about its business during the putative class
period.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on March 29, 2002,
and hearing on this motion is set for June 7, 2002.  The Company
believes the allegations against it are without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Nix Patterson Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nix Patterson & Roach LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin
Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Universal
Access, Inc. or Universal Access Global Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:UAXS)
between May 10, 2001 and April 24, 2002, against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors seeking remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Patrick C. Shutt (COE and Chairman),

     (2) Robert M. Brown (CFO),

     (3) Robert E. Rainone, Jr. (President of Global Operations for
         Universal Access),

     (4) George A. King (President of Client Services of Universal
         Access),

     (5) Robert J. Pommer (Vice Chairman),

     (6) Scott D. Fehlan (General Counsel and Secretary) and

     (7) Paolo Guidi (Director)

The suit charges the defendants with issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period, failing to
adequately disclose a change in the Company's business model and the
risks involved in that change, and issuing financial statements that
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's publicly traded
securities.

The alleged GAAP violations include recording revenue for contingent
contracts and for "capacity swaps" with other telecommunications
companies.  As alleged in the complaint, these capacity swaps were
merely a trading of services, which had no real business purpose other
than to artificially inflate the revenues of the participating
companies.  The complaint alleges that these actions violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For more details, contact Brad Beckworth by Phone: 903-645-7333 (EXT.
221) or by E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Universal Access, Inc. or Universal Access
Global Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:UAXS) common stock during the period from
May 10, 2001 through April 24, 2002, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The action charges the Company, as well as seven of its senior officers
including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  These violations, the complaint alleges, stem from
defendants' materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period that, as detailed below:

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

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

The complaint 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 May 10, 2001 and April 24, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to adequately disclose the
Company's adoption of a new business model and the attendant and
material risks facing it as a result.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the Company issued financial
statements which violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP), by improperly recording revenue for contingent contracts. In
addition, the complaint alleges that Universal Access also improperly
recognized revenue for "capacity swaps" with other communications
companies, which had no real business purpose and artificially inflated
the Company's reported revenues.

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


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Meet To Discuss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
About 300 stockholders of Williams Communications Group met recently to
discuss ways their nearly worthless shares could be saved from
elimination by the Company's bankruptcy plan, The Associated Press
reported recently.

Investors pouring into the meeting at a Tulsa, Oklahoma theater heard
about efforts to bring a class action against the broadband wholesaler
and about attempts to secure stockholder representation in bankruptcy
court.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 on April 22, under a plan that will
divide shares in its post-bankruptcy organization between bondholders
and its former parent company.  Stockholders will get nothing.  The
Tulsa-based telecom amassed debts of $7.15 billion and assets of $5.99
billion while constructing a 33,000-mile fiber-optic network.

The Company said it had no choice but to leave shareholders out of the
reorganized company because bankruptcy law requires it to repay
creditors first.  Most investors at the meeting said they felt cheated
because Company executives assured them that shareholder value would
not be diluted and had offered positive financial projections almost
until the end.

Others expressed suspicions about parent Williams Companies' motives in
spinning off its communications subsidiary, which it now stands to
regain in streamlined form freed from most of its debt.

"You wonder how Williams can spin this off, wipe out all the
shareholders and then own half the company," said Steve Brown, who
works in financial services in Tulsa.

Organizer of the meeting, Phil Redman, who stands to lose $200,000 in
the bankruptcy, said that he was pleased that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had urged the Judge overseeing retailer Kmart
Corporation's bankruptcy to appoint a trustee to represent the
shareholders.  

Mr. Redman, who owns a convention management company in Tulsa, said
such an urging by SEC could set a precedent applicable to this case.  
"This is not the pie-in-the-sky thing that Williams and Williams Cos.
would have you believe," he said.


                               *********

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  * * *