CAR_Public/020522.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, May 22, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 100

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: High Court Dismisses $1B Suit Over Franchise Tax Refunds
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: EEOC Sues For "Coercion" of 650 Insurance Agents
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Says Customers Entitled To Profit on Trust Funds
CATHOLIC CHURCH: MA Residents File Suit Accusing Diocese Priest Of Rape
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faulty Upkeep May Have Caused Amtrak Derailment

DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 26T Infant Car Seats/Carriers For Injury Hazard
GOODYEAR TIRE: New Mexico Homeowners Sue Over Defective Rubber Hoses
ILLINOIS: Stephenson County Considers Suit Over Late Medicaid Payments
KENTUCKY: High Court Upholds Voting On Alcohol Sales In Dry Counties
LIBYA: Gadafy Payout For Victims of Lockerbie Bombing In Works

PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Officials Ask For Lifting of Federal Oversight
RMS TITANIC: Shareholders File Fraud, Incompetence Suit in VA Court
WASHINGTON: Kitsap County Faces Suit For Imposing "Illegal" Impact Fees
ZIFF DAVIS: Reaches Agreement in Magazine Price Fixing Suit in S.D. NY

*Gaming Firms Seen as New Targets For Suits Over Compulsive Gambling

                           Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
AIRGATE PCS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
AIRGATE PCS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
AIRGATE PCS: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Fraud Suit in GA
ALCATEL SA: Fruchter & Twersky Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NY

CIRCUIT CITY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
CMS ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
CMS ENERGY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Oregon
CONCORD CAMERA: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL

DYNEGY INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. TX
DYNEGY INC.: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Fraud Suit in TX
DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in NY
DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
ECI TELECOM: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in VA

EDISON SCHOOLS: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EXELON CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
FTD.COM: Denies Allegations in Shareholder Suits Over IOS Merger in DE
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in CT

GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
INTERSIL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suits in NY
LANTRONIX INC.: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
RELIANT RESOURCES: Nix Patterson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
RELIANT RESOURCES: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
RELIANT RESOURCES: Patton Haltom Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Denies Formation of Equity Committee
                              
                            *********


ALABAMA: High Court Dismisses $1B Suit Over Franchise Tax Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed a class action filed by thousands
of companies seeking some $1 billion from the state in franchise tax
refunds, The Associated Press reports.

The Friday ruling means the companies can only get refunds of the now-
illegal franchise tax by using the state's tax rules, which bar the
use of lawsuits.  The decision also says the companies that want
refunds must file separately, not as a class.   Eight Supreme Court
justices signed the ruling.  Justice Harold See recused himself from
the case.

The Court said the state cannot be sued as part of a class action in
this tax dispute because the Alabama Constitution grants it immunity.  
"The reasonable taxpayer . had no reason to believe that a direct
action against the state was permitted under Alabama law," the decision
stated.

Chuck Dauphin, an attorney for the class of companies suing the state,
said he would appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, US Supreme Court or
another federal court.  The (Alabama) Supreme Court contradicted itself
by hearing this case twice and only now deciding the companies lacked
the right to sue as a class, Mr. Dauphin said.  "This time they said
there is no jurisdiction.  If there is no jurisdiction, why did they
hear the first appeal."

Nearly 400 out-of-state companies sued the state for franchise tax
refunds and 2,700 more were seeking refunds from the state Revenue
Department.  Some 15,500 out-of-state companies currently doing
business in Alabama have not yet sought refunds.

The US Supreme Court ruled Alabama's franchise tax unconstitutional in
1999, because it taxed out-of-state companies doing business in Alabama
at a higher rate than Alabama-based companies.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: EEOC Sues For "Coercion" of 650 Insurance Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed
a lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company, on behalf of 650 life
insurance agents who lost health and pension benefits when they were
switched from Allstate employees to independent contractors, the
Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges the Company intimidated the agents when it switched
their work status in 2000 and 2001.  The agents allegedly were told
they could not work as company contractors unless they signed a release
prohibiting them from suing any past discrimination, the EEOC reports.  
In a May 10 letter to the Company, the EEOC labeled the prohibition as
"unlawful interference, coercion and intimidation," the New York Times
reports.

The suit has been combined with an earlier and substantially similar
class action filed by the agents.  The suit also is similar to a
lawsuit filed by the EEOC in December 2001 in Philadelphia, alleging
similar treatment of 6,500 agents who sold auto, home and life
policies.

Company spokesman Michael Trevino told Associated Press the company
does not believe it did anything wrong.  "We continue to be open to
discussions with the EEOC, we continue to have disagreements with them,
and those disagreements are fundamental in nature," he said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Says Customers Entitled To Profit on Trust Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiffs in a class
action filed against Bank of America, on behalf of holders of at least
2,500 trust funds placed in Security Pacific National Bank, which the
Company acquired in 1992, between 1975 and 1990, sfgate.com reports.

The suit alleges that the Security Pacific imposed fee increases on the
funds without court authorization.  When Bank of America acquired
Security Pacific, it did not stop the overcharges until 1994, allowing
the overcharges to reach US$24 million.  The Bank already paid
customers US$41.8 million in refunds and interest.  However, it
resisted the customers' demand to return the profit the banks made on
the fees over the years.

Federal Judge Charles Legge ruled in the Bank's favor in 1997, saying
the profit was impossible to calculate because there was no evidence of
what either bank did with the excessive fees they collected, sfgate.com
reports.

The Appeals Court disagreed, saying the money should be treated like
any ill-gotten gains.  "The elementary rule of restitution is that if
you take my money and make money with it, the profit belongs to me,"
said Judge John Noonan in the 2-1 ruling. "In the regular course of
business, the banks put the overcharges to work. The overcharges caused
an addition to profit.showing where the money went is the (bank's)
problem."

The Court said the customers are entitled to a proportionate share of
the banks' profit during the years of overcharges, sfgate.com reports.  
The parties have already agreed that, if the profit exceeds $12.5
million by any amount, the customers will receive $40 million
regardless of the final calculation, said Jerome Falk, a lawyer for the
customers.  The ruling could also add $40 million to the $41.8 million
they have already been paid in refunds and interest.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: MA Residents File Suit Accusing Diocese Priest Of Rape
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Worcester, Massachusetts filed recently a class action
against the Catholic Diocese of Worcester and Rev. Robert E. Kelley in
the Worcester Superior Court, on behalf of Rev. Kelley's alleged sexual
abuse victims, the Telegram and Gazette (Worcester, MA) reports.  

Daniel J. Shea, a Houston lawyer who recently opened a law office in
Worcester, filed the suit on behalf of Karen A. Pederson and other
women who have not yet come forward.  The suit alleges that Ms.
Pederson was molested when she was eight, while the priest was assigned
to St. Boniface Parish in Lunenburg in 1975.

Rev. Kelley, who has not been active in the priesthood since 1986, was
convicted in 1990 of raping a Gardner girl and served a prison term.  
He later was found liable in a civil suit filed on behalf of a woman
who said the priest sexually abused her as a child in the 1970s when he
was assigned to a parish in Southbridge.  The priest also will be
arraigned on charges of rape and unnatural rape, which will be
prosecuted by the District Attorney's office.

The Telegram & Gazette disclosed last week that Rev. Kelley had given a
sworn deposition stating that he has sexually abused over 100 girls
while assigned to some other parishes in the diocese.  Mr. Shea said he
intends to file a writ to attach the assets of the Worcester Diocese.

Lawyer Jeffrey A. Newman of Boston and Marblehead last week filed a
civil suit in Middlesex Superior Court on behalf of three women, who
said they were sexually abused by Rev. Kelley when he was at St.
Cecelia's.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faulty Upkeep May Have Caused Amtrak Derailment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faulty track maintenance by Jacksonville's CSX Transportation may have
left loose rails where an Amtrak Auto Train derailed last month in
Crescent City, killing four people, a National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) investigator said, according to The Florida Times-Union.  
NTSB spokesman, Keith Holloway, said, however, that the investigation
is ongoing and any comments about findings would be premature. It will
be months before official findings are issued.

The Company, which owns and maintains the tracks, was having trouble
anchoring the tracks to the ground before the April 18 accident, NTSB
investigator Russ Quimby told The News-Journal of Daytona Beach
recently.  The Company had difficulties maintaining enough gravel
beneath the track on the curve where the derailment happened, Mr.
Quimby said, and that could have led to a track misalignment.  He also
said the Company had done work on the section four times since last
October, but the track was not re-anchored or configured to minimize
the amount of movement in the rails.  Amtrak engineers said they saw a
track misalignment and pulled emergency brakes just before the crash.

Mr. Holloway would not comment on Mr. Quimby's statement.  He said
investigators have left the accident scene and continue to study
possible causes of the derailment in Washington.  They are expecting
investigation results to be released in nine to 12 months.  NSTB
investigations generally take many months, sometimes years, to
conclude.  

Company spokeswoman Kathy Burns declined to comment because of the
pending investigation.

The Company's track maintenance program has been monitored for the last
two years by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), after the
railroad was criticized for poor and potentially unsafe track
conditions.  A safety compliance agreement between the FRA and the
railroad ended two weeks ago because the FRA was satisfied with the
programs the Company has implemented to improve its track conditions,
FRA spokesman Warren Flatau said.

Hallandale Beach attorney Brian Rodier is leading a team of law firms
that filed a class action the day after the accident that names the
Company, Amtrak and others as defendants.  He said he expects to be
certified to represent the plaintiffs within 45 days.

Four people were killed and more than 150 injured in the April 18
derailment of Amtrak's Auto Train.  The 40-car train was going 56 mph
in a 60-mile zone while traveling from Sanford to Lorton, Virginia.  
The train carried 418 passengers and 34 crew members, as well as 200
automobiles.


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 26T Infant Car Seats/Carriers For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling about 26,000 Safety 1st
and Beatrix Potter "Designer 22" infant car seats/carriers.  

When the seat is used as a carrier, the plastic handle can unexpectedly
release from the carrying position.  When this happens, an unrestrained
infant can fall to the ground and suffer injuries.  The Company has
received four reports of the handle releasing, although no injuries
were reported.  
        
The recalled car seats/carriers were sold under the Safety 1st and
Beatrix Potter "Designer 22" brand names and were manufactured by the
Company in the US.  The seats were manufactured between January 3, 2002
and February 13, 2002.  Only model numbers and color codes 02-621-SAL,
02-620-AZY and 02-620-BEA are included in this recall.  The model
number and manufacture date are located on the instruction and warning
label on the side of the car seat/carrier.

Mass merchandise and department stores nationwide sold the "Designer
22" infant car seats/carriers from January 2002 through April 2002 for
between $40 and $70.  None of the car seats/carriers was sold in
Canada.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-536-1090 by
Fax: 800-207-8182 between 7 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Thursday and
between 7:00 am and 4:30 pm ET on Friday or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.djgusa.com/services/productrecall/recalls.html


GOODYEAR TIRE: New Mexico Homeowners Sue Over Defective Rubber Hoses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico homeowners have filed a class action in Santa Fe District
Court, against the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, claiming that they
are having problems with their radiant-floor-heating systems due to
flaws in the Company's Entran II rubber hose used in their heating
systems, The Associated Press reports.  

The litigation is being handled by Santa Fe attorney Brad Berge, who
said the lawsuit is in "the early throes of certification."  Goodyear,
Mr. Berge added, may file an appeal of the class certification with the
New Mexico Court of Appeals, which would postpone the certification
effort.

Mr. Berge explained why appeal of the certification request may occur
at this point in the proceedings.  "It's a brand-new rule in New Mexico
that a class certification can be appealed in advance of the trial as
opposed to waiting until afterwards.  We don't have enough experience
to know how the court will proceed.  Our hope is that it will happen in
a few weeks or even a few months, and the worst nightmare is that it
will take a whole lot longer.  I am optimistic they will resolve it
quickly," he said.

Fred Haymond, spokesman for the Company, which is based in Akron, Ohio,
confirmed that the company is filing an appeal of the proposed class
certification in New Mexico.

Mr. Berge estimated that, based on the fact that between three million
and four million feet of Entran II was sold in New Mexico, there may be
as many as 2,000 homeowners in the state that have had the product
installed in their radiant-floor systems.  "Part of the class action
process is sending out notices to class members and giving them the
opportunity to opt out," Mr. Berge said.  "That is on hold pending .the
appeal.   But we certainly are not precluded from putting the word out
to folks who may have Entran II in their homes."

Mr Haymond, the Goodyear spokesman, said that once the case goes to
trial, "Our side's contention is that we produced and delivered to
Heatway Systems (the now-bankrupt wholesaler of Entran II and a former
joint venture partner of Goodyear), a merchantable product that when
used in a system that is designed and maintained properly will provide
many years of good service."  Mr. Haymond added that in more than 95
percent of the houses where Entran II is in use, it is working fine.

Mr. Haymond said further that because Heatway did not provide any kind
of maintenance manual to homeowners, the people involved with Entran II
assumed they had a carefree system in place, which was not correct.  
The Company plans to contest lawsuits against Entran II in all judicial
districts where they have been filed, said Mr. Haymond, pointing out
that in 2000, the company won an Ohio jury decision that Entran II hose
was "merchantable."

However, the Company is also planning to appeal a recent class action
in Arapahoe County, Colorado, that awarded plaintiffs more than $23
million.  Mr. Haymond did estimate that there are about 15 lawsuits
pending against the Company for its Enran II product.

According to the Colorado Realtor, a trade publication, several
chemists who tested Entran II found that the product deteriorates after
two or three years because too much oxygen passes through its exterior
wall, causing it to lose its plasticizers.  The Company has disputed
those analyses.  Many of the homeowners complaining about the
performance of Entran II say they discovered they had problems with the
product by first finding a leak in an Entran II hose.  


ILLINOIS: Stephenson County Considers Suit Over Late Medicaid Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephenson County officials are considering a class action against the
state of Illinois to pursue interest owed by the state on late Medicaid
payments for the Stephenson County Nursing Center, the Freeport Journal
reports.  Officials agree that the late Medicaid payments and proposed
Medicaid cuts would put the nursing center in an even more precarious
financial position than it already is in.

Nursing Center Committee Chairman Edward Yde said he will research the
state statutes to see if such a lawsuit is possible.  "This is just
something we are talking about at this point," he said.  "We have to
research the law to see what the law specifically says about this. I
believe the state statute says that you have to pay your bills within
30 days or you have to pay interest. The state owes us for four months.
But we have to look at the law to see the way it is written."

According to Nursing Home Administrator Sherry Gravenstein, a class
action was commenced in state court a few years ago, but never
prospered.  She told the Freeport Journal, however that having the suit
in federal court and possibly teaming up with other medical agencies
that are owed Medicaid money may be a way to make the lawsuit work.  
However, the interest may be less because the state starts counting
interest 30 days after the nursing home sends in a bill for
reimbursement.  That's why further research into the state statutes is
required, she said.

"The whole concept, I do agree with," Ms. Gravenstein told the Journal.  
"Why should the state not pay their bills when citizens have to in a
timely manner? I would certainly support it if we ever went that far.
We ought to do it right, though, and make it a larger suit than just
Stephenson County. There is some strength in numbers."

Boyd Boyer, chairman of the Stephenson County Board, however, said he
doesn't feel the lawsuit is the correct thing to do at this point, and
said he prefers that the county continue petitioning the state
government for Medicaid payments while pursuing possible fund-raising,
including forming a non-profit foundation for the nursing home.


Whatever the county decides to do, Mr. Yde said officials will first
consult with State's Attorney Michael Bald and do extensive research
before pursuing a lawsuit against the state.  "We've got some research
to do before we jump into any deep water.If we did file suit, it would
be in federal court in Rockford. We would say that the state is in
violation of its own laws. We are hoping that we can come up with other
ways. We've got to do what is best for the nursing home," he told the
Freeport Journal.


KENTUCKY: High Court Upholds Voting On Alcohol Sales In Dry Counties
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2000 law that allows local-option votes in dry cities and counties
for alcohol sales at larger restaurants is constitutional, Kentucky's
state Supreme Court ruled recently, The Lexington Herald Leader
reported.

The decision by a 6-to-1 majority of the Court turned back a challenge
from the Temperance League of Kentucky, which had argued it was special
legislation, and local-option votes are not allowed on regular election
days.  Further, the Temperance League said the law was unconstitutional
because it gave special status to restaurants of a certain size, as
opposed to any other business that might want to sell alcohol.

The alcohol sales law allows petitions for local-option votes, and
several communities around the state held such referendums in November
2000.  Voters in Georgetown, Kuttawa, Murray and Guthrie approved
alcohol sales at restaurants that seat more than 100 and derive at
least 70 percent of their gross receipts from the sale of food.  Voters
in other communities rejected sales.


LIBYA: Gadafy Payout For Victims of Lockerbie Bombing In Works
--------------------------------------------------------------
Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gadafy is preparing to compensate the
families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing, in a move which
could mark the first step toward removing sanctions on Libya and ending
its status as a pariah state, according to a recent report from The
Guardian.  A letter to American relatives from a lawyer negotiating
with officials from the Libyan government in Paris, suggests the Libyan
leader is prepared to make a deal.

The letter, obtained by the American news magazine Time, does not say
how much money Colonel Gadafy will put on the table, but experts
predict Libya might be prepared to offer a multibillion-dollar
settlement.  

Washington and London have insisted that Libya cannot be brought back
into the international fold until it complies with United Nations
resolutions which insist it admits responsibility for the bombing and
pays compensation to the families of all those killed.

A Libyan secret agent, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, is serving a minimum of
20 years in a Glasgow jail cell for planting the bomb which brought
down Pan Am flight 103 on December 21 1988.  Following the rejection of
Megrahi's appeal by five judges, sitting at a Scottish court in the
Netherlands in March, the criminal investigation has been brought to a
close.

However, the Libyan regime has so far insisted it played no part in the
bombing.  The British relatives of those who died warned yesterday that
any offer of compensation from Libya had to be viewed as a political
gesture rather than as an admission of responsibility.

James Swire, spokesman for the lobby group UK Families Flight 103,
said, "We had no part in chasing the UN to call for compensation.  Our
campaign always has been for truth about what happened and justice for
our families."

The letter to the American families of the victims, dated April 23, was
written by James Kreindler, a New York attorney who has been
negotiating with Libyan officials behind closed doors in Paris.  Mr.
Kreindler represents only American families in a US-based civil class
action brought against the Libyan government.  American legal rules
prohibit UK families, and those from other countries, from taking part
in that lawsuit.

However, Libya must pay compensation to all relatives in order to meet
the terms of the UN resolutions, and a lawyer acting for the British
families confirmed yesterday that negotiations were at an advanced
stage.

Most observers believe it is likely that Colonel Gadafy will expect
international sanctions on Libya, which have virtually crippled the
country's oil and gas industries, to be lifted in return for any
reparations to the relatives.   However, any move to lift sanctions may
be opposed by the United States, following a recent CIA report, which
claimed Libya was actively seeking weapons of mass destruction.

In Britain, families say they will continue to campaign for a public
inquiry into the bombing of the Pan Am jumbo.


PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Officials Ask For Lifting of Federal Oversight
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
City officials are trying to persuade the Justice Department to
partially lift federal oversight of police officers by no longer
keeping watch over the department, while retaining ties, however, with
an office that investigates complaints, The Associated Press reports.

City officials and police maintain they have fulfilled the requirements
of the five-year-old agreement with federal officials, which stemmed
from a 1996 class action accusing the city, its highest officials and
75 officers of condoning a pervasive pattern of abuse.

The agreement, which staved off a possible federal takeover, required
the department to revamp oversight, training and supervision.  Among
its reforms were:

     (1) a computerized system to track officers' behavior,

     (2) requirements that officers document all traffic stops, and

     (3) annual training in cultural diversity, integrity and ethics

A court-appointed auditor reported that city police have met all
requirements of the decree, except one, since the fall of 1999.  
Quarterly audits of the police department have found a backlog at the
city's Office of Municipal Investigations, which was created as part of
the decree to handle citizen complaints against police. The backlog was
194 cases last week.

City officials have proposed ending federal oversight of the police
department but continuing oversight of the Office of Municipal
Investigations.  The Justice Department "has agreed to that in concept,
but have not agreed in detail," said city solicitor Jacqueline Morrow.

Civil rights groups had a mixed response to the proposal.  The American
Civil Liberties Union, which filed the 1996 class action on behalf of
66 people, opposes lifting federal oversight until the city complies
with all parts of the agreement.  "While the department deserves credit
for implementing many of the important and necessary changes, that is
only half of the target; the other half is the Office of Municipal
Investigations," ACLU Executive Director Witold Walczak said.  "Until
both (parts of the target) are in full compliance, and it has been
shown that they both are working effectively and properly, we should
not even be talking about ending federal oversight."

Meanwhile, 43 cases involving 54 of the 66 original plaintiffs in the
class action, from which the federal oversight evolved, are pending
trial in federal court.


RMS TITANIC: Shareholders File Fraud, Incompetence Suit in VA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders in RMS Titanic, Inc. filed a class action in the United
States District Court in Virginia, accusing Joseph Marsh, the single-
largest Company shareholder, and the current corporate officers of
ruining a profitable venture through a combination of fraud, stock
manipulation and incompetence, the Plain Dealer reports.  RMS Titanic
Inc. (RMST) holds the salvage rights to the famous shipwreck in the
North Atlantic.

In 1912, the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic, with 1,500 people, due
to icebergs and many design flaws.  The wreck was discovered in 1985,
12,500 feet beneath the Atlantic, about 400 miles off the coast of
Newfoundland.  RMS Titanic Inc. was formed two years later to explore
the site and has spent $11 million on six expeditions since then to
bring up artifacts.  Joseph Marsh, who owns 13% of the Company's stock,
has invested $5 million since 1999, when he took part in a hostile
takeover of the company that holds salvage rights to the wreck.

Many shareholders believe they already have lost, since their stock has
tumbled, in three years, to less than a tenth of its value.  Mr. Marsh
blames the federal court in Virginia for reversing themselves and
taking away the very salvage and ownership rights they had awarded.  

Recently, a federal appeals court said that the Company cannot sell
anything and that it won salvage rights only by promising to exhibit
the salvaged artifacts and never sell any.

Other players, the major investors, now contend they are merely
businessmen, who stepped in to take control of the Company and make it
more profitable for shareholders, partly by expanding it into a
worldwide treasure-hunting enterprise.

Mr. Marsh says the Company's six expeditions have retrieved artifacts
worth at least $100 million.  Billions of dollars' worth remain
underwater.  However, the Courts won't let Mr. Marsh sell the
artifacts, saying the Company is to make money from exhibitions touring
the country, one of which is drawing big crowds to Cleveland's Great
Lakes Science Center.  The exhibition, which attracted more than 80,000
visitors in its first month, runs through September 2.

The shareholders, including himself and the major investors would all
be rich today, says Mr. Marsh, but for the government's interference.  
However, into this mix must be added that rather arcane corner of
international legality called admiralty law, which covers the ownerless
high seas. Admiralty law covers shipwrecks.

Court-supervised salvage rights require the Company to dive on the
wreck every two years or so.  If the Company does not go down by
September, it will forfeit the rights, Mr. Marsh said.  However, he
also says the projected $2 million from Titanic exhibitions will not be
enough to cover an expedition.  There is no guarantee the Court will
allow sale of some of the artifacts to finance an expedition.

There is precedent for the courts to award total ownership to a salvor,
however, said Robert Scaro, a Virginia lawyer representing the Company.  
In fact, its lawyers have argued that the Court unequivocally ruled in
1994 that the company had total ownership.  Mr. Marsh and other
investors say that is why they bought in.

The Company plans to carry its fight to sell artifacts and to be deemed
owner to the US Supreme Court.  If the majority investors prevail, Mr.
Marsh anticipates five more expeditions.


WASHINGTON: Kitsap County Faces Suit For Imposing "Illegal" Impact Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kitsap County, Washington and three of its school districts faces a
class action filed by local attorneys Bill Broughton and Martin
McQuaid, over the County's Comprehensive Plan, which allows counties to
impose such things as builders' impact fees for infrastructure or new
building and development, the Central Kitsap Reporter states.

The suit alleges that the illegally imposed "impact fees" between Sept.
24, 1996 and March 29, 2000.  The Comprehensive Plan should be okayed
by the state as conforming to its Growth Management Act (GMA).  The
suit alleges that the County's comprehensive plan was not in compliance
with the state's GMA until 1999, thus making the plan null and void.

The North, Central and South Kitsap school districts have already
settled the suit last December 7,2001 with 55 cents on-the-dollar, Mr.
Broughton told the Kitsap Reporter.  The total settlement for schools
was just about $2.2 million.  

However, the County is resistant to settlement and continues to
maintain its innocence.  The County is presently seeking a summary
judgement to dismiss the suit. No date for this has been set.

Sue Tanner, a lawyer with the county's Prosecuting Attorney's Office,
told the Reporter Mr. Broughton is wrong, the county "was authorized by
the (GMA) statute" during the period in question. Also, "He says the
county was collecting (fees) during that period . and we weren't. He's
making no distinction between `imposing' and `collecting.'"

"We're also arguing Mr. Broughton's clients didn't file for an appeal
when the fees were imposed," she said. "All these fees are essentially
taxes, and very few people paid under protest - and that's necessary to
claim a tax refund," she said.

"The fundamental issue here is whether developers pay for the impact
they have on a community," she added. County fees pay for such things
as roads and parks.


ZIFF DAVIS: Reaches Agreement in Magazine Price Fixing Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ziff Davis Media, Inc. has reached an agreement in the antitrust class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit also names other magazine publishing
companies as defendants.

The consolidated suit combines approximately 25 separate price fixing
lawsuits that were commenced beginning on July 19, 2000.  The suit
alleges a conspiracy among the magazine publishers to inflate
subscription prices by agreeing not to offer subscriptions at more than
a 50% discount off list price.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which
has been stayed pending the settlement discussions.  The Company is
confident that the litigation will not have an adverse effect on its
financial position or operations.


*Gaming Firms Seen as New Targets For Suits Over Compulsive Gambling
--------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the first state attorneys general to sue the tobacco industry,
told a recently held problem-gambling conference that the gaming
business will be the next target for lawyers seeking compensation for
addicts, The Hartford Courant recently reported.

As gambling continues to expand in Connecticut and across the country,
"somebody is going to sue somebody," former Massachusetts Attorney
General Scott Harshbarger told participants at the New England
Conference on Problem Gambling.  Mr. Harshbarger is now president of
the citizens' lobby group Common Cause.

Mr. Harshbarger told a mixed gathering of industry executives, gambling
critics and researchers that "there is a dramatic public health cost -
there is a dramatic social cost" stemming from pathological gambling.  

In Canada, Mr. Harshbarger's prediction is a reality.  Last week, a
judge allowed a class action against Loto-Quebec to go forward.  The
suit seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on behalf of
people addicted to video lottery terminals.  In Connecticut, there as
many as 70,000 "problem and pathological" gamblers, according to the
state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.  A 1996 study
estimated that 15 percent of patrons at casinos and 51 percent of those
at OTB parlors were "probable pathological" gamblers.

Executives from Mohegan Sun and the Connecticut Lottery Corporation
said they were working hard to recognize customers who might have a
problem.  Lottery Vice President Barbara Porto said it is "just plain
good business that we need to prevent problem gambling.  For the
Lottery, good business is sustained, healthy and responsible gambling."  
She said the Lottery is looking for players "who gamble safely and
consistently over the course of their entire adult lives."

Mohegan Sun President William Velardo said that "historically, the
gambling industry has been reluctant to deal with the (problem
gambling) issue.  That has changed dramatically."  Dean W. Hestermann,
director of public affairs for Harrah's, a leading casino operator,
said, casinos do not want people who can't control their gambling.  "We
readily acknowledge that there are a small number of people that do not
use our product as intended."

Not everyone concurred with Mr. Harshbarger's strong opposition to
gambling.   Most agreed, however, that there is a lack of research into
the causes and consequences of gambling addiction.  "We are doing all
this preventative stuff, and we have no idea whether it works," said
Henry Lesieur, a leading gambler researcher.  

"Rhode Island is addicted to its (gambling) revenues, and I am sure
Connecticut is (similarly) addicted," said Mr. Lesieur, of Rhode Island
Hospital and Brown University.  "They are not asking the hard
questions.  How much are we contributing to the problem?"

Michael R. Johnson, a recovering problem gambler, said few resources
are available for people who can't stop.  "There is one (gambling
treatment) program in the state of Connecticut.  We need more programs
that reach out to the cities," said Mr. Johnson, who is now a peer
counselor with the Department of Mental Health and Addictive Services.

                            Securities Fraud

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

     (1) John J. Rigas, Chairman,

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

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

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

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

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 6, 2000 and March 27, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The suit alleges that, among other things, throughout the class period,
the Company engaged in deceptive sales practices, which artificially
inflated the reported number of telecommunications lines that it sold.  
In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants improperly caused
the Company to pay the overhead expenses of Adelphia Communications
Inc., a company controlled by defendants which maintained important
business ties with the Company and on which the Company depended.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that Adelphia Communications had in excess of $2 billion in off-balance
sheet liabilities. On March 1, 2002, the Company announced that it will
default on interest payments on certain secured notes.  Subsequently,
on March 27, 2002, defendants disclosed that Adelphia Communications,
along with another entity controlled by defendants, was liable for $2.3
billion of previously-undisclosed debt.  On that same day, the Company
filed for bankruptcy.

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


AIRGATE PCS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of AirGate
PCS, Inc. (Nasdaq: PCSA) in the Company's public offering on or about
December 14, 2001.  The suit is pending against the Company and:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave,
Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


AIRGATE PCS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP launched a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of purchasers of AirGate PCS, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCSA) in
the Company's public offering on or about December 14, 2001, against
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's secondary public offering:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (2) Lehman Brothers,

     (3) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (4) William Blair & Company,

     (5) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and

     (6) TD Securities

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing material misrepresentations in the Company's Prospectus
for their secondary offering, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

On or about December 14, 2001, the Company released a prospectus
concerning a common stock offering, and offered four million shares of
its common stock to the public at an offering price of $50 per shares.   
The suit alleges that this prospectus failed to disclose some of the
problems associated with the Company's merger with iCPS, Inc.

Specifically, the incorporation of iCPS would be ineffective barring
radical changes to the Company's conduits of distribution.  This
assimilation of iCPS would be elongated resulting in considerable sales
declines to beginning subscribers.

The complaint further alleges defendants also failed to disclose that
drastic reorganization would also be necessary in the iCPS markets'
sales forces, having a negative result on productivity, leading to a
decrease in the estimate of recent subscribers. The merger with iCPS
also added the number of sub-prime credit quality customers, causing an
augmented turnover rate for clients.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole, Gustavo
Bruckner, 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 Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to AirGate.


AIRGATE PCS: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Fraud Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated several securities class actions in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased AirGate PCS,
Inc. (Nasdaq: "PCSA") common stock pursuant to or traceable to a
secondary public offering completed by the Company on or about December
14, 2001.

The complaints charge the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and certain of the underwriters in the Offering with
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaints allege that defendants misled their investors by failing
to disclose material information in the offering prospectus relating to
the restructuring of the Company's newly-acquired company iPCS, which
would result in lower subscriber rates.  As a result of defendants'
misrepresentations, Company investors have sustained tremendous losses.

Specifically, the complaints allege that the prospectus failed to
disclose that the Company would have to make drastic changes to its
distribution channels in order to complete an effective integration of
iPCS.  As a result, the integration of iPCS would take longer than
expected, and sales to new subscribers would be significantly reduced.

In addition, the prospectus failed to disclose that the sales force in
the acquired iPCS markets would require extensive restructuring, which
would negatively impact productivity, resulting in a lower than
expected number of new subscribers.  The prospectus also failed to
disclose that the turnover rate for customers would increase after the
merger with iPCS due to the addition of iPCS sub-prime credit quality
customers to the Company's customer base.

For more details, contact Martin D. Chitwood or Krissi Temple by Mail:
2900 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by
Phone: 888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-mail: mkt@classlaw.com or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.classlaw.com.  


ALCATEL SA: Fruchter & Twersky Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Alcatel SA, its chairman and CEO Serge Tchuruk and its
president Jean-Pierre Halbron on behalf of:

      (1) all persons other than defendants who purchased the American
          Depositary Shares (ADSs) of Alcatel relating to Alcatel's
          Class O common shares (NASDAQ:ALAO) in or traceable to the
          initial public offering of the ADSs 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 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:

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

     (2) 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,
         Alcatel, and at the Company's external customers;

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

     (4) 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 Alcatel 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, Alcatel
Class A common shares, in the form of ADSs declined by 8.8% from $27.14
to 24.74.

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


CIRCUIT CITY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Circuit City Stores, Inc.
(NYSE: CC) between December 6, 2001 and February 22, 2002, inclusive.
The action is pending against the Company and Alan W. McCollough.

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 December 6, 2001 and February 22, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements during the class period which failed to disclose,
among other things, that the Company was facing significant inventory
shortages and was experiencing problems with its internal controls
which would result in the Company having to incur additional expenses
associated with the termination of leases and with the remodeling of
almost half of its retail stores.

When defendants belatedly disclosed these problems on February 22,
2002, the last day of the class period, the price of Company stock
plummeted over 33% to close at $16.08 per share.

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


CMS ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of CMS Energy Corp.,
(NYSE: CMS) between August 3, 2000 and 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.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that 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, the Company's 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 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 Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


CMS ENERGY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of purchasers of CMS Energy Corporation (NYSE: CMS)
publicly traded securities during the period between August 3, 2000 and
May 10, 2002, inclusive, 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 defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market 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, the Company's 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 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
Website: http://www.classlawyer.com


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

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

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

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

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

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


CONCORD CAMERA: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Concord Camera, Corp.
(Nasdaq: LENS) between January 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001, inclusive,
against the Company, Harlan Press and Ira B. Lampert.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements, which
failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

On June 22, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company issued
a press release revising its fourth quarter guidance and disclosing for
the first time that:

     (i) excess inventory positions at many of the Company's customers
         and the resulting changes in their purchasing patterns have
         adversely affected inventory sales;

    (ii) the Company will record the following one-time charges against
         income in the quarter: $15.8 million accounts receivable
         provision, $4.3 million inventory provision, $1.4 million
         restructuring charge; and

   (iii) the accounts receivable provision and $2.0 million of the
         inventory provision relate to a financially troubled former
         customer of the Company with respect to which management has
         concluded that workout efforts are not likely to be
         successful.

In response to these disclosures, the price of Concord stock plummeted
over 20% to close at $6.02.

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


DYNEGY INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. vowed to vigorously oppose several securities class actions
pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period between April 1, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive.

The suits principally assert that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's accounting treatment
and disclosure of the natural gas supply transaction that was entered
into by the Company in April 2001 and the subject of the Company's and
subsidiary Dynegy Holdings, Inc.'s Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on
April 25, 2002.

The Company has not yet been served with the suits, but it anticipates
that additional suits of this nature may be commenced and that all such
suits will eventually be consolidated in a single court.  The Company
will fully analyze these allegations once the complaints are received
and, based on its current understanding, believes these allegations are
without merit.


DYNEGY INC.: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) and certain of its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased publicly
traded securities of the Company between April 17, 2001 and April 24,
2002.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that the Company and its
top officers inflated the price of the Company's stock in order to sell
almost $500 million in stock to the investing public.

Defendants knew that concealing the Company's true vehicle, Project
Alpha, for creating cash flow from operations and the true impact it
would have on the Company provided the only way that they could foster
the perception in the business community that the Company was not
"Enron Corp.," i.e., the only way the Company could post the revenue
and earnings per share growth claimed by defendants.

Prior to the class period, the individual defendants realized that many
of their complicated deals to generate reported net income did not
generate cash flow.  The defendants knew that investors would
eventually discover this discrepancy and the Company's stock price
would collapse.

To prevent this, the Company classified what was essentially a loan
from CitiGroup Inc. as an operating activity rather than as a financing
activity as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The
defendants' wrongful course of business:

     (1) artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during
         the class period;

     (2) deceived the investing public, including plaintiff and other
         class members, into acquiring the Company's securities at
         artificially inflated prices;

     (3) allowed the individual defendants to extract millions of
         dollars in bonuses for creating the appearance of the
         Company's phenomenal cash flow from operations growth; and

     (4) allowed the Company to sell nearly half a billion dollars of
         its own securities to the unsuspecting public.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Stuart J. Guber 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 Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.com


DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action against Dov Pharmaceutical, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOVP) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock in or traceable to
its April 25, 2002 initial public offering.

The action charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and the lead underwriters of its IPO, CIBC World Markets and Lehman
Brothers, with violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  

The Company issued five million shares in its IPO on April 25, 2002 at
$13 a share, but failed to timely inform the class of a revision of its
1999 financial results to properly include a Joint Venture in Bermuda
with Elan Corporation.  The class of purchasers of the shares in the
IPO or in the aftermarket were not promptly made aware of the
restatement, and as a result, suffered losses on the first day of
trading or thereafter, when the Company's shares fell from $13 to $8.70
per share.

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


DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against DOV Pharmaceutical (Nasdaq: DOVP), on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased DOV common stock in or traceable to DOV's
initial public offering.

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

The complaint alleges that the Company issued approximately five
million shares in its IPO on April 25, 2002 at $13 per share, but
failed to timely inform the class of revisions in its financial
results.

On April 25, 2002 when Company shares began public trading investors
learned that the Company's previously issued financial statements had
been materially false and misleading.  As a result Company shares lost
approximately 33% of their value in one day, falling from their
offering price of $13.00 to close trading at $8.70 per share.

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


ECI TELECOM: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI Telecom Ltd. (Nasdaq: ECIL) reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Virginia, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The suit further alleges that a fraudulent scheme, a deceptive course
of business and the dissemination of false and misleading financial
statements injured Company shareholders who purchased stock from May 2,
2000 through February 14, 2001.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company and the
plaintiffs will negotiate and seek court approval of the definitive
settlement.  This includes the establishment of a fund to cover the
settlement to be paid by the Company's insurance carriers, and the
dismissal of all claims without any liability or wrongdoing attributed
to the Comapny.

In addition, and also subject to court approval, the plaintiffs have
agreed to drop their claims against Doron Inbar, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and against the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, the individual defendants in the class action lawsuit, without
any liability or wrongdoing attributed to the individual defendants.

David Ball, Chairman of the Board of ECI, commented, "Although we
believe that the claims are without merit and were prepared to
vigorously defend ourselves against the action, we believe that it is
in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to end the
expense and distraction of the lawsuit and focus our energy on the
achievement of our long-term strategic goals."

Details regarding the shareholder litigation settlement will be
communicated to members of the class prior to final court approval.


EDISON SCHOOLS: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences 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 Edison Schools Inc.
(Nasdaq: EDSN), between November 11, 1999 and May 14, 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 complaint alleges
that, throughout the class period, the Company issued numerous
quarterly press releases reporting the Company's 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
Company's common stock was trading at $1.50 to $2 per share, after
reaching a class period high of $36.75 per share.

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 Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


EDISON SCHOOLS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities 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 Edison Schools Inc. (Nasdaq: EDSN)
publicly traded securities during the period between November 11, 1999
and May 14, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Chris Whittle (President and CEO),

     (2) Adam Feild (Chief Financial Officer) and

     (3) Christopher Cerf (Chief Operating Officer)

The 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 further 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 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.classlawyer.com


EXELON CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Exelon Corporation, (NYSE: EXC) between April 24, 2001 and September
27, 2001 inclusive, against:

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

     (2) John W. Rowe (Co-CEO and President) and

     (3) Ruth Ann Gillis (CFO)

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 April 24, 2001 and September 27, 2001.

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 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 plummeting in value at a
         rapid pace. Accordingly, Enterprises could not and would not
         meaningfully contribute to the Company's results and, in fact,
         the Company was carrying tens of millions of dollars of
         impaired investments on its financial statements; and

     (2) that InfraSource, Exelon'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, its common stock price plunged by 22%, falling to a low
of $38.85 per share on September 27, 2001, after closing at $50.45 the
previous day, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


FTD.COM: Denies Allegations in Shareholder Suits Over IOS Merger in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FTD.Com, Inc. vows to vigorously oppose five securities class actions
pending in the Court of Chancery for New Castle, County in Wilmington,
Delaware relating to its planned merger with IOS Brands, Inc.  The suit
names the two companies as well as FTD.com's directors as defendants.

The suits were filed beginning on March 5, 2002, after the press
release announcing the merger was released.  The suits generally make
essentially the same allegations, that:

     (1) the offer by IOS to exchange 0.26 shares of IOS Class A common
         stock for each share of the Company's common stock is
         inadequate;

     (2) the individual defendants breached the fiduciary duties they
         owed in their capacity as directors by, among other things,
         failing to conduct an auction or otherwise check the market
         value of the Company before voting to accept the merger
         proposal;

     (3) IOS and its board of directors prevented the FTD.COM board of
         directors from conducting a meaningful review of the
         transaction; and

     (4) IOS, the Company and certain individual defendants timed the
         merger to deny public stockholders the full potential increase
         in the Company's stock price following the merger.


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Gerber Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: GRB) and certain of its principal
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between May 27, 1999 through April
12, 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 complaint alleges
that, throughout the class period, defendants issued statements
regarding the Company's quarterly and annual financial performance and
filed reports confirming such performance with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

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

     (1) the Company was employing improper inventory and reserve
         accounting practices in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company.

As a result, the Company's operating results were materially
misrepresented and overstated.  Based on the foregoing, defendants'
statements concerning the prospects of the Company were lacking in a
reasonable basis at all times.

On April 15, 2002, before the market opened, the Company announced that
it expected to take a $12 million pre-tax charge in its fiscal fourth
quarter, the period ending April 30, 2002.  Additionally, the Company
announced that, in response to an investigation by the SEC into its
inventory and reserve accounting practices, it was conducting an
internal review of its financial reporting for the period January 1,
1998 through April 30, 2002.

The Company further stated that its investigation is ongoing and once
it has been completed, the Company will likely restate its financial
results for the appropriate periods. In response to the Company's
announcements, the price of its common stock has declined to $2.66 per
share, a decline of more than 66% from its trading price prior to the
disclosure.

For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, Doug Risen 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


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: GRB)
between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002, inclusive against the Company
and:

     (1) Michael J. Cheshire,

     (2) Marc T. Giles,

     (3) George M. Gentile,

     (4) Shawn M. Harrington,

     (5) Gary K. Bennett and

     (6) Anthony L. Mattacchione

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

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

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

     (i) the Company was employing improper inventory and reserve
         accounting practices in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles. As a result, the Company's operating
         results were materially misrepresented and overstated;

    (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company; and

   (iii) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On April 15, 2002, before the market opened, the Company announced that
it expected to take a $12 million pre-tax charge in its fiscal fourth
quarter, the period ending April 30, 2002.  Additionally, the Company
announced that, in response to an investigation by the SEC into its
inventory and reserve accounting practices, it was conducting an
internal review of its financial reporting for the period January 1,
1998 through April 30, 2002.

The Company further stated that its investigation is ongoing and once
it has been completed, the Company will likely restate its financial
results for the appropriate periods. In response to the Company's
announcements, the price of its common stock declined to $6.99 per
share, a decline of more than 71% from a class period high of $24.50
per share, reached on July 6, 1999.

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


INTERSIL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suits in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Intersil
Corporation amended their suits, adding certain officers of the Company
as defendants and changing the nature of their causes of action.  The
suits are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain of its current
officers and directors, and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, its
lead initial public offering underwriter and lead underwriter of its
September 2000 offering.

The suits were commenced in June 2001, alleging violations of Rule 10b-
5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on, among other things:

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

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

These lawsuits against the Company, as well as those alleging similar
claims against other issuers in initial public offerings, have been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.  

In December 2001, plaintiffs amended the suits, dropping claims of
securities fraud against the Company and the individual defendants,
while adding claims under one or more sections of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company and the individual defendants arising from the
alleged misrepresentations or omissions describes above with regard to
both the Company's initial, and second, public offerings.

The Company believes the claims against it are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend them.


LANTRONIX INC.: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Felgoise, PC 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, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, against
the Company and certain key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad
Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 or by E-mail: BrianFLaw@yahoo.com



MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
GoTo.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:OVER) during the period from January 11, 2001
through June 6, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and charges Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its
former Internet research analyst Henry M. Blodget with issuing
misleading analyst reports about the Company in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Pomerantz firm also represents shareholders of Excite@Home, 24/7
Real Media, Inc., Internet Capital Group, Inc. and Aether Systems, Inc.
in other cases filed against Merrill Lynch and Mr. Blodget.

The suit alleges that in an effort to obtain investment banking
business from GoTo, defendants issued positive ratings on the Company
which were materially misleading as they were inconsistent with their
own contemporaneous, private adverse assessments of GoTo.  For example,
the very day of the initiation of coverage, Mr. Blodget admitted in an
e-mail that there was "nothing" interesting about GoTo except banking
fees.

The complaint also describes how defendants made their proposed rating
for GoTo more palatable to GoTo management by downgrading a GoTo
competitor. However, when defendants learned that GoTo had awarded its
underwriting business to another bank, defendants downgraded GoTo in
retribution.

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 GoTo were among those
challenged by the Attorney General.

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


MERILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud 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 the common stock of Internet
Capital Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICGE) between the period of August 30,
1999 through November 8, 2000, against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and
its Internet analyst Henry Blodget.

The firm is also involved in other cases against Merrill Lynch and
Blodget on behalf of purchasers of Infospace, Excite@Home, Aether
Systems, and 24/7 Real Media, Inc.

The suit alleges that to maintain and enhance Merrill Lynch's
investment banking relationships with ICGE, defendants issued analyst
reports with positive ratings on ICGE which were materially misleading
as they are inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private
adverse assessments of ICGE.

For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short-term
accumulate, long-term buy rating on ICGE despite their internal e-mails
that there was no hopeful news to relate and that they saw nothing that
will turn this around near-term.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Katrina Jurgill 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
kjurgill@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.com


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRGN) and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, on behalf of all persons or entities,
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between
July 19, 2000 and May 3, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that during the class period defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
Peregrine and its audit activities.

On Monday, May 6, 2002, the Company announced that its board of
directors had authorized the audit committee of the board to conduct an
internal investigation into accounting inaccuracies, totaling as much
as $ 100 million.

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

As a result, investors were damaged, by purchasing the Company's
securities at artificially inflated levels during the class period.

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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Nix Patterson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP filed a securities class action in the
Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division on May 17, 2002, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Reliant Resources Inc.
(NYSE:RRI) between May 1, 2001 and May 10, 2002, inclusive.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) R. Steve Letbetter,

     (2) Steven W. Naeye and

     (3) Mary P. Ricciardello

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between May 1, 2001 and May 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

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

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

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

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

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

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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action against Reliant
Resources Inc. (NYSE:RRI) 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 pursuant to or
traceable to the registration statement declared effective May 1, 2001
or in the open market during the period from May 1, 2001 through April
14, 2002, (Section 11 Class Period) and on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period May 1, 2001
through May 10, 2002 (Section 10(b) Class Period).

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and 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.

Starting with the May 1, 2001 Registration Statement, defendants issued
a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's quarterly and annual financial performance and filed reports
confirming such performance with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

The complaint also 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 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 its high.

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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Patton Haltom Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer LLP initiated a securities
class action in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division on
May 17, 2002, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Reliant
Resources, Inc. (NYSE:RRI) between May 1, 2001, and May 10, 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 May 1, 2001, and May 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer,
LLP by Mail: Century Bank Plaza, Suite 400 2900 St. Michael Drive
Texarkana, Texas 75503 by Phone: 866-546-9959 ext. 404 (Toll Free) or
by E-mail: radams@pattonhaltom.com  


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Denies Formation of Equity Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A United States Bankruptcy Court Trustee in New York has determined
that formation of an equity committee representing common shareholders
of Williams Communications Group, Inc. is "inappropriate at this time,"
Tulsa World reported recently.

Phil Redman, a Tulsa resident who lost $200,000 when the Company filed
for bankruptcy protection, said, "One of the things Williams
Communications and (parent company) Williams Companies are trying to do
is discharge all the shareholder class action through this bankruptcy.  
Obviously, this is one step closer to having that happen."

The decision, made by Carolyn Schwartz, United States trustee in US
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, means 15,571
Owners of 490 million Company shares will not be represented in court
hearings involving the Company's reorganization.

Ms. Schwartz wrote in her decision that "based upon the information
received, we understand that the debtors are insolvent by an excess of
US$1 billion."  She wrote further that the 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ending March 31,
2002, evidenced continued deterioration in the debtor's financial
condition.  

Ms. Schwartz explained that "courts in this district have held that an
equity committee should not be appointed where the debtor is hopelessly
insolvent . Accordingly, we have determined that the formation of an
official equity committee is inappropriate at this time."

The decision stunned some shareholders who had hoped for a place at the
bargaining table with the Company's lenders, which include the banks,
bondholders and Williams Companies, Inc., from which the communication
unit was spun off a year ago.

                              *********

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  * * *