CAR_Public/020524.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Friday, May 24, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 102

                           Headlines


APARTHEID LITIGATION: ECAAR To Sue Companies Who Defied Arms Embargo
ARGONAUT GROUP: Agrees To Settle CA Suit Over Workers' Compensation
CANADA: Attempt To Remove Judge From Veterans' Pension Case Denied
CLAIRE'S STORES: Agrees To Modify Stores To Settle Florida ADA Suit
DOUBLECLICK INC.: NY Court Approves Settlement in Consumer Privacy Suit

FMC CORPORATION: Reaches US$1.35M Settlement in Suit Over Tank Leak
HUMAN RIGHTS: Group Serves Visiting Chinese Official With Rights Suit
JO-ANN STORES: Agrees To Settle For US$6.5M Overtime Wage Suit in CA
LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Hydrologist Testifies About Finding Sewer Leak
LOUISIANA: Police Academy Starts Operations After Legal Challenge Fails

BOB WATSON: Illinois Court Approves Sexual Harassment Suit Settlement
TACO BELL: OR Jury Says Firm Failed To Pay For Meal Breaks, Extra Hours
WAL-MART STORES: Texas State Court Grants Certification To Wage Suit
WEST CORPORATION: OH State Court Denies Certification To Consumer Suit
WEST CORPORATION: Will Request Dismissal Due To Lack of Jurisdiction

                        Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
ADVANCED FIBER: CA Court Yet To Decide on Dismissal of Securities Suit
ALLIED CAPITAL: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CMS ENERGY: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MI
CMS ENERGY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI

CMS ENERGY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
CONCORD CAMERA: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CONCORD CAMERA: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
DEPARTMENT 56: MN Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Law Violations
DYNEGY INC.: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX

EDISON SCHOOLS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EXELON CORPORATION: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
GENZYME TRANSGENICS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Employee Plan Suit
HI/FN INC.: Faces Three Derivative Lawsuits in CA Federal, State Courts
MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: US$2.7M Securities Suit Settlement Gains Approval
PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Suit
PEERLESS SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Amend Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
RELIANT RESOURCES: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in TX

SAF T LOK: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
SALOMON SMITH: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SEITEL INC.: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in TX
UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
VIROPHARMA INC.: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA

                           *********

APARTHEID LITIGATION: ECAAR To Sue Companies Who Defied Arms Embargo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An anti-arms lobby group is preparing to file a multi-billion-dollar class
action against European companies who defied a United Nations arms embargo
against apartheid South Africa between 1977 and 1994, the Independent Online
reports.

The Economist Allied for Arms Reduction (ECAAR) will file the suit, together
with lawyers who successfully represented victims of the Holocaust against
Swiss banks over their role in the death of millions of Jews.

ECAAR-SA spokesperson, Terry Crawford-Browne, told Independent Online, "It
is well documented that European armaments and technology supplied to the
apartheid government in violation of international law were used to
terrorize the people of South Africa."

A University of Cape Town revealed that France, Germany, Italy and Israel
were the "biggest technology providers" for most of South Africa's weapons
systems during the arms embargo.   Thus, the list of possible defendants in
the suit include major companies such as:

     (1) Plessey,

     (2) Racal Electronics,

     (3) General Electric Corporation,

     (4) Marconi,

     (5) Decca,

     (6) EMI Electronics

     (7) International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT),

     (8) Sperry-Rand,

     (9) IBM,

    (10) Siemens and

    (11) AEG-Telefunken

The Independent Online states that ECAAR-SA has been authorized by lawyers
in New York and Cape Town to announce that damages to be sought from courts
in the US are a minimum amount of about R200-billion for distribution as
reparations to victims of apartheid.


ARGONAUT GROUP: Agrees To Settle CA Suit Over Workers' Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
San Antonio insurer Argonaut Group Inc. tentatively consented to settle a
Los Angeles class action, alleging that the company inadvertently miscoded
loss data regarding workers' compensation claims reported to the California
Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau from 1989 through 1993, the San
Antonio Business Journal reports.

The Company admits no wrongdoing or liability by settling the suit.  In a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, it states that it has
accrued $1 million for legal fees but does not reveal the total amount of
the settlement.

"Management is unable to reasonably estimate at this time the amounts, which
may be paid to class members under the tentative settlement," the Company
said.  "Therefore, no additional liability has been accrued as of March 31,
2002."


CANADA: Attempt To Remove Judge From Veterans' Pension Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Divisional Court, in a 45-page decision, refused an attempt
by the federal government to have Superior Court Justice John H.
Brockenshire removed as the case management judge for the disabled
veterans' class action against the Crown, the Canada News Wire reported
recently.

In its decision, the Court dismissed the government's appeal of a lower
court ruling.  It also thoroughly reviewed the Crown's allegations that
Justice Brockenshire had demonstrated an anti-government bias in remarks
made during a case management conference.  The Court dismissed the Crown's
appeal because the Crown waited for over two months after the remarks
allegedly were made to launch the appeal.

In addition to dismissing the appeal, the Court rebuked the Crown for
its litigation conduct.  The Divisional Court was critical of the Department
of Justice, who represent the Crown in the class action, calling their
action in the case "inexcusable" as well as "high-handed and cavalier."

The legal team representing the disabled veterans in the lawsuit responded
to the decision, saying, among many things, that "This is a
significant decision which removes a roadblock of uncertainty which had
been holding up the case; namely, the question of Justice Brockenshire's
disqualification.  Further, in dismissing this appeal, the Court sent a
clear message to the Crown by ruling that there was no cogent or
satisfactory reason provided for having delayed making its complaints
known."

The legal team also said, "This decision removes any hint of bias or
injudicial behavior.  When the government failed to produce a report -
contrary to its promise - Justice Brockenshire responded to that
failure, and this decision supports a judge's right to do so.  The
decision also noted that any reasonable, informed person, would have
concluded that a reprimand for this failure was completely justified."

The class action was brought against the federal government for its failure
to pay interest on millions of dollars of monies that it has
held in trust since World War I on behalf of disabled veterans who were
deemed unable to manage their financial affairs.  The federal government
held the veterans' monies in the consolidated revenue fund where the funds
have accumulated since the early 1900s.  Despite numerous reports indicating
that they had an obligation to do so, successive federal governments failed
to pay interest on these veterans' funds.

In the mid 1980s, two Auditor General's reports (1985, 1986) signaled to the
federal government that they had failed to pay interest on these
funds, noting that this failure had left the government exposed to
litigation.  In 1990, the federal government passed amendments to the
Veterans Affairs Act, which purported to commence interest payments, but
only for 1990 and onwards.  However, the only clause in this group of
amendments that was actually passed into law, took away the right to sue by
preventing veterans or their representatives from pursuing the
federal government for any interest owing prior to 1990.  Justice
Brockenshire struck down that law.

The Crown is currently seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada various decisions which ruled in the veterans' favor.


CLAIRE'S STORES: Agrees To Modify Stores To Settle Florida ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
When Sheri Koors was named the 1999 Junior Miss Wheelchair Florida at
the age of 18, she learned that one of her duties was to advocate for
people with disabilities.  She did not have to look far to find an
accessibility issue about which she knew something.  For years, she had
been growing increasingly frustrated while trying to maneuver her
wheelchair around the Claire's in the Treasure Coast Mall, in Jensen
Beach, Florida, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.

Ms. Koors, after complaining several times, to no avail, decided to seek
legal help.  In January 2000, Access Now, a Miami-based disability
advocacy group that has filed hundreds of accessibility lawsuits, filed
a class action alleging Claire's stores systematically blocked access to
merchandise and cash registers.

The lawsuit was settled recently.  The settlement not only addressed Ms.
Koors' concerns, but it also set precedents that lawyers for both sides
predict will show how access to merchandise in small stores can be
accomplished without harming sales.  The store's parent company, Claire's
Stores Inc. of Pembroke Pines, while not admitting any wrongdoing, agreed
with Ms. Koors that its 2,2000 stores did not have to be so crowded.

However, finding ways to resolve the issue took some time.  No court
settlement had ever dealt with the issue of access to merchandise in small
chain stores or access to merchandise displayed on movable racks.

The 12-year-old Americans with Disabilities Act says retailers must
provide maneuvering room around permanent displays.  However, retailers do
not have to comply if the displays are movable and removing them to
improve access would hurt sales.  "The ADA just says if you can't make
something accessible, you provide alternatives," said Robert Fine, a
Miami attorney who represented Claire's in the ADA case.  Mr. Fine is
also an architect, who helped hammer out ways to improve access in
Claire's stores.

The Claire's case, both sides say, broke new ground in three ways:

     (1) it recognized that smaller stores could not always provide 100
         percent access;

     (2) it recognized that stores are more crowded with merchandise
         during peak selling periods, and access was more limited
         during those times;

     (3) it created a standard for making merchandise at least visibly
         accessible when physical accessibility cannot be accomplished
         without significantly hurting sales.

Class settlements often get thrown out of court because disability
groups and government officials object to applying a broad solution to
an entire chain when individual stores may have different problems.
Claire's itself has three store sizes; under 600 square feet, between
600 and 900 square feet and more than 900 square feet.

The settlement's main terms are:

     (i) Claire's largest stores will be 100 percent accessible by
         widening the paths, by certain specifications, to merchandise
         and cash registers;

    (ii) the stores of 600 to 900 square feet, the most common size,
         will also widen the paths to merchandise by the same
         specifications used in the largest stores, except for August 1
         through September 15, for the back-to-school-season, and
         November 15 through January 30, for the holiday and post-
         holiday shopping periods.  During those excepted times, stores
         will offer visible access to 90 percent of the merchandise,
         meaning a person in a wheelchair should have an unobstructed
         view to within seven feet of 90 percent of the merchandise;

   (iii) the smallest stores, like the Treasure Coast store, will
         adhere to the 90-percent visibility standard all year.

Claire's Vice Chairwoman, Bonnie Schaefer, said, "We do have a fiscal
responsibility to our shareholders, but in today's retail environment we
have to do everything we can to make our customers happy and comfortable."


DOUBLECLICK INC.: NY Court Approves Settlement in Consumer Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted final approval to a settlement proposed by Internet advertising
company DoubleClick, Inc. to settle an invasion of privacy suit.

Under the settlement, the Company will provide consumers with a privacy
policy that will clearly describe in "easy-to-read sentences" its online
ad-serving service, use of cookies, as well as other services and
technologies, according to a ZDNet report.  The settlement also requires the
company to purge certain data files of personally identifiably information,
including names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Furthermore, the Company is required to obtain permission, or so-called
opt-in agreements, from Internet surfers before it can tie personally
identifiable information with Web surfing history.  ZDNet also states that
the Company must conduct a public information campaign consisting of 33
million banner ads that educate consumers on Internet privacy.  An
independent accounting firm that will conduct an annual review regarding its
compliance of the settlement.

Ira Rothken, one of the lead plaintiffs' settlement counsel, told ZDNet the
settlement is "reasonable" under the circumstances because the plaintiffs
were given limited tools under the law to prosecute the case.  "I believe
that we have a good result that will protect Internet users' privacy on the
Internet," Mr. Rothken said. "I'm hopeful that the Internet advertising
community as a whole will look at this settlement agreement for guidance on
how to conduct their business online, and I'm also hopeful that Congress
will provide legislation in the near future that will fill any voids that
are left in the settlement agreement."

The Company declined to comment on Tuesday's hearing, according to ZDNet.
However, in a previous statement regarding the settlement, the Company said
it would continue to provide "the same full range of marketing solutions for
its clients" alongside protections and controls to "safeguard consumer
information."


FMC CORPORATION: Reaches US$1.35M Settlement in Suit Over Tank Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation tentatively agreed to settle for US$1.35 million a class
action stemming from a 1995 leak at its Niro plant, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Papers filed with the United States District Court in Charleston, West
Virginia, show that each of the 406 people represented in the lawsuit filed
against the Company will receive an average payment of $1,327.  The
settlement does not include costs for lawyers who filed the lawsuit.

A settlement was announced in December before the start of a third trial in
the case, but the details were not announced.  The recent filing, however,
shows that a point system was proposed to pay individual plaintiffs.  If
adopted, individual payments would range from $4,025 to $1,000 to cover lost
wages, minor injuries and other damages.

The Company was sued after more than 6,000 pounds of phosphorous trichloride
leaked from one of its tanks.  The chemical combined with rain to form a
cloud of hydrochloric acid.  The release forced thousands of resident indoor
and led officials to close several highways.  The Company has since sold the
plant.

A jury, in 1998, found the Company liable for more than $38.8 million in
damages.  The verdict was overturned, however, after Federal Judge Charles
Haden II ruled that a witness had provided incorrect information to the
jury.  The Company admitted liability in the second trial in 1999, but
challenged the plaintiffs' alleged injuries.  The second jury found no link
between the leak and the injuries.  That verdict was thrown out by a federal
appeals court, which ordered a third trial.

The Court has yet to approve the proposed settlement.


HUMAN RIGHTS: Group Serves Visiting Chinese Official With Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
China's banned Falungong spiritual group has served a top Chinese official,
visiting the United States, with a writ alleging torture and
genocide, according to a report from Agence France-Presse.  Ding Guangen, a
politburo member and head of publicity for the Communist party's central
committee, was served with papers in an Hawaiian hotel,
on the way home from a visit to Canada.

This cases differs from other similar cases in that it is a class action,
designed to protect the interests of a large group of people,
rather than a few individuals, said Morton Sklar, Executive Director of
the World Organization Against Torture, which is sponsoring the action.
The court papers were filed on behalf of a Frenchwoman Helene Petit, who was
arrested in Tiananmen Square during a peaceful protest and expelled on
November 21, and three unnamed Chinese plaintiffs.

Mr. Ding faces charges including torture, genocide under the Alien Tort
Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act, which allows American
jurisdiction over acts of torture committed outside the country.  A lawsuit
can proceed only if defendants are served with legal papers while in the
United States.  Mr. Ding is the fifth top Chinese official
to be served with such a writ during a visit to the United States.

Falungong already won one earlier case, through default, for damages against
Zhao Zhifei, Public Security Chief of China's Hubei province, who refused to
show up in court to contest charges of torture, murder and crimes against
humanity.  The legislation allows jurisdiction over any assets that are held
by the named individuals in the United States, but as it does not provide
for jurisdiction over their person, it cannot prevent their return to their
country.

Activists say that the cases, even if not contested, allow victims some
restitution, and one thing more.  It offers them the chance to pursue
symbolic justice, as well as putting China on notice that human rights
violations will not go unpunished.


JO-ANN STORES: Agrees To Settle For US$6.5M Overtime Wage Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail chain Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. agreed to settle for US$6.5 million the
consolidated class action pending in the Superior Court of California
alleging violations of the state's wage laws.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of the Company's former and
current California store management employees, and alleges that the Company
violated certain California laws by erroneously treating its
store management employees as "exempt" employees who are not entitled to
overtime compensation.

The settlement was reached in January 2002 and the Company recorded a
pre-tax charge of $6.5 million in its fourth quarter of fiscal 2002.  The
Company is confident the settlement will not have a material adverse effect
on its operations or financial position.


LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Hydrologist Testifies About Finding Sewer Leak
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hydrologist hired by Lockformer Company confirmed in recent testimony that
his firm found a chemical leak along the southern sewer line on the
Company's Lisle, Illinois property only last fall, the Chicago Tribune
recently reported

Ronald St. John, vice president of Clayon Group Services, testified at a
continuing trial on a federal class action, brought in November
2000, by 186 homeowners, living south of Lockformer's Ogden Avenue
plant, who are suing for damages after trichloroethylene (TCE) was
found in wells supplying the homes with drinking water.

The major part of Clayton's work focused on an area around a fill pipe
next to the Ogden Avenue plant, where the degreaser is known to have
been spilled numerous times, over decades, as workers pumped the solvent
into a rooftop tank.

The Company claims that it did not realize until 1991 that the spills had
entered the ground.  It also asserts that the contamination around the fill
pipe was contained by the soil, and that the TCE found in the
Homeowners' wells came from the leak in the southern sewer line discovered
only about six months ago.

Mr. St. John testified that 12 pairs of test wells and soil borings
showed no TCE in the bedrock and a small amount in the shallow groundwater
in one of the southern wells.  The soil borings showed the
upper surface of the soil's first clay layer had acted "like a sponge,"
said Mr. St. John, absorbing the spilled TCE.  Under cross-examination,
Mr. St. John acknowledged that he installed just one bedrock monitoring
well near the sewer line, and it was the only one he installed downhill
from the plant.

Another defense witness disputed earlier testimony by the plaintiffs'
environmental engineering expert that undiluted TCE that spilled from
the fill pipe leached into the bedrock and contaminated the homeowners'
wells.  Dr. John Devlin, an assistant professor in the University of
Kansas hydrology department, said that if that hypothesis were correct,
TCE "should be in the bedrock below the fill pipe with a continuous
plume to the homeowners' wells."  However, he said, almost all of a
"reasonable amount of (test) wells" have tested negative and none showed
undiluted TCE in the bedrock.


LOUISIANA: Police Academy Starts Operations After Legal Challenge Fails
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge, Louisiana's latest police training academy began as scheduled
recently, after a legal effort by a group of black officers to stop it
failed, The Baton Rouge Advocate reports.

A federal magistrate rejected an attempt by the Magnolia Police Officers
Association, which has pending a racial discrimination lawsuit against the
police department, to keep the academy from starting its 18-week program.
"We just couldn't put enough evidence on to stop it," said Patrick McGrew,
the attorney for the Magnolia Police Officers Association.

The group of black police officers and former officers sued the city of
Baton Rouge in October 2000, claiming the Baton Rouge Police Department
improperly stopped a court-ordered hiring plan in 1970.  The plan, the
result of a lawsuit filed by the federal government, called for the city to
hire one black officer for each white officer hired, until the demographics
of the Police Department matched the city's.  Mr. McGrew said the city
simply stopped trying to comply.  Black people now make up about 50 percent
of the city of Baton Rouge's population.  However, according to January 31
figures, the police department is just over 75 percent white.

In the next step, Mr. McGrew's clients filed for a restraining order in the
US District Court in Baton Rouge, in an effort to stop the training
class of the academy.  They claimed the new class of recruits, 20 white men,
one white woman, one Hispanic woman, three black men, and three
black women, dilutes the advancement potential of any minorities hired
in the future.

After a hastily scheduled hearing, US Magistrate Judge Stephen Riedlinger
turned down the request.  The Magistrate said that, among
other reasons, the plaintiffs had not shown they would be irreparably
harmed and failed to demonstrate that stopping the police academy would
not adversely affect the public interest.

The Magnolia officers are now preparing to ask US District Judge Ralph
Tyson to certify the lawsuit as a class action, which would allow the
plaintiffs to represent any black or female police officer and applicants
who claim to have been discriminated against.

At the training academy's opening exercises, Chief Pat Englade did not
speak to the new officers about any of the legal troubles that preceded
the start of their class.  He said that the 28 individuals in the
classroom were the best of more than 350 candidates.  He said further
that, "The most important decision I make is who I put in these seats.
What will be my legacy is whom did I hire, how did I train them and what
kind of police officers did they become."

The academy is the first to be led by Sgt. Keith Bates, who is black.
Chief Englade said he believes Sgt. Bates is a good teacher for the
academy and for other training programs the department handles.  Chief
Englade said he did not know whether having Sgt. Bates run the academy
will increase minority recruitment.

The class that recently began is the first to be actively sought by the
department's recruitment team, a racially diverse group of officers that
represents the department at job fairs and other activities where
potential police officers may be found.


BOB WATSON: Illinois Court Approves Sexual Harassment Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Joan B. Gottschall granted final approval to
the settlement of a class action involving nearly 70 women, filed in 2001 in
Federal Court in Chicago. The suit charged widespread sexual harassment of
temporary female employees at Bob Watson Chevrolet, one of the Chicago
metropolitan area's largest car dealerships.

The Bob Watson employees who filed this suit, principally African- American,
female telemarketers, brought the suit to end the constant, on-the-job
harassment that, according to the federal complaint, Company management had
inflicted on them.  Most of the class members were short-term employees,
working for the Company between two weeks and six months.

The suit charged that several high-ranking managers routinely demanded
sexual favors, sexual dances or poses, and sexual gratification from workers
in return for job security or greater compensation.  According to the
plaintiffs, Company male managers:

     (1) described their sex organs as their weapons;

     (2) threatened to discharge women workers who complained about
         harassment; and

     (3) attempted to examine or grope the bodies of female employees.

Furthermore, according to the plaintiff's court documents, Bob Watson
managers regularly made crude comments about their own sexual practices, and
openly fantasized, in vulgar terms, about the sexual organs and sexual
activities of some female employees.
Although Bob Watson management claimed to have provided written notification
to the permanent employees of their right to object to sexual harassment, in
court papers Bob Watson accepted that it did not regularly provide temporary
employees with that same information.

The total settlement cost to Bob Watson is almost $300,000, including
payments of $3,000 to each of 66 class members who responded to settlement
notices, as well as additional payments to the three named plaintiffs.

Latasha McDaniel, the first named plaintiff, said in a statement, "All we
wanted was to do a good job and be able to support our children. To have
this happen was horribly unfair and extremely degrading. I am grateful that
this settlement was reached and that other women workers won't have to deal
with this kind of thing anymore."

Ms. McDaniel and other short-term workers belong to a segment of the labor
force that has rarely succeeded in obtaining relief in federal court from
sexual harassment.  However, on March 6, 2002, Judge Gottschall certified
the Bob Watson settlement class, consisting of 69 female workers, and gave
preliminary approval to the settlement. This affirmed the plaintiffs' view
that the sexual harassment occurred in a systemic manner and should be
resolved on a class-wide basis.

After Judge Gotschall's decision, each plaintiff was mailed a notice
describing the case and giving her the option to participate in the
settlement, to object to it, or to exclude herself from the case entirely.
In fact, of 69 class members, 66, or 96%, wrote back to participate in the
settlement and all of them expressed their approval of it, a notably high
response and approval rate for a class action.

Commenting on the settlement, Ms. McDaniel's lawyer, Michael Fridkin,
director of the CLC Employment Opportunity Project, said, "This is a
long-needed vindication of the rights of temporary female workers to dignity
and equal treatment in the workplace. They have rarely achieved this kind of
relief, comparable to that received by permanent employees for sexual
harassment, in Chicago or anywhere else."

Further, Mr. Fridkin noted, "Researchers have found that in jobs that are
predominantly female, such as telemarketing by temporary workers, sexual
harassment can be so prevalent that women workers assume it is
unchallengeable. As a result, sexual harassment cases on behalf of temporary
workers are rarely filed, rendering this settlement an important symbolic,
as well as practical, victory."

Initially, Ms. McDaniel protested the Bob Watson culture of harassment by
filing a sexual harassment charge with the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC).  She was later joined by two additional named plaintiffs,
April Galvin and Darnetta Calhoun.

In addition to the settlement's cash award of $3,000 per victim, Bob Watson
must institute a company-wide anti-harassment program with four components:
first, at Bob Watson's expense, the EEOC must provide on-site training to
all Bob Watson managers on their duty to halt sexual harassment and the
right of workers to complain about harassment, in confidence, and without
fear of retaliation.

Second, upon hiring and again once every year, every Bob Watson employee
must take an anti-harassment course, again at company expense and on company
time, informing employees of their right to be free from harassment, the
duty of managers not to harass, and the Bob Watson procedure for making
complaints.

Third, to reform Watson's historical practice of not always giving temporary
employees documentation on their employment rights, Bob Watson must
distribute written manuals to each employee detailing the rights and
remedies for workplace harassment. And fourth, for the next three years, on
a quarterly basis and in writing, Bob Watson must certify to Judge
Gottschall its compliance with these procedures. False representations could
subject Bob Watson to additional sanctions.

While these temporary employees worked on-site at Bob Watson and took
direction from Bob Watson management, they were paid by Labor Ready, a
nationwide temporary labor agency that contracted with Bob Watson. However,
Labor Ready was not a target of the lawsuit because it was Bob Watson
managers who harassed company workers, working under the exclusive
supervision of Bob Watson management.

For more details, contact Michael K. Fridkin, Director, Chicago Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. by Phone:
312-630-9744, or visit the organization's Website: http://www.clccrul.org


TACO BELL: OR Jury Says Firm Failed To Pay For Meal Breaks, Extra Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An Oregon jury determined that Taco Bell Corporation failed to pay for
certain meal breaks and/or off-the-clock work for 86 of 93 claimants in the
five-year-old wage suit against the fast food chain last April 2002.

Two former Taco Bell shift managers commenced the suit in August 1997 in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon of the County of Multnomah, on behalf
of approximately 17,000 current and former hourly employees statewide.  The
suit alleges violations of state wage and hour laws, principally involving
unpaid wages including overtime, and rest and meal period violations.

Under Oregon class action procedures, the Company was allowed an opportunity
to "cure" the unpaid wage and hour allegations by opening a claims process
to all putative class members prior to certification of the class.  In this
cure process, the Company has paid out less than $1 million.

In January 1999, the Court certified a class of all current and former shift
managers and crew members who claim one or more of the alleged violations.
A trial date of November 2, 1999 was set.  However, the court later issued a
proposed order postponing the trial and establishing a pre-trial claims
process.

The final order regarding the claims process was entered in January 2000.
The Company moved for certification of an immediate appeal of the
court-ordered claims process and requested a stay of the proceedings, but
the court denied the motion.  The Company appealed this decision to the
Supreme Court of Oregon, but the High Court also denied the Company's writ
of mandamus.

A court-approved notice and claim form was mailed to approximately 14,500
class members in January 2000.  The Court ordered pre-trial claims process
went forward, and hearings to determine potential damages were held for
claimants employed or previously employed in
four selected Company units.

After the initial hearings relating to these four units, the damage claims
hearings were discontinued, and trial began in January 2001.  The jury later
reached verdicts on the substantive issues in this matter.  A number of
these verdicts were in favor of the Company, however, certain issues were
decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

The Company intends to appeal the recent jury verdict, as well as the
verdict in the related liability trial held in 2001.  The Court has not yet
determined the dollar amount of the jury award, or whether the court will
allow an interlocutory appeal at this point or go forward with one or more
additional damages trials for the remaining claimants.

Although the outcome of this case cannot be determined at this time, the
Company believes the ultimate cost of this case in excess of the amounts
already provided will not be material to its annual results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.


WAL-MART STORES: Texas State Court Grants Certification To Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas State Judge Ben Hardin granted class action status to a lawsuit
brought by four former Wal-Mart employees who say the world's largest
retailer cheated them out of wages, according to a report by the Houston
Chronicle.  The ruling marks the first time a judge in the United States has
certified a wage dispute against the Company as a class action, a spokesman
for the company said.

The ex-employees claim that their Wal-Mart superiors required them to
work "off the clock" and miss rest and meal breaks as a condition of
their employment.  The lawsuit further contends that Wal-Mart managers
cheat the workers to cut store expenses to enable themselves to receive
higher compensation and bonuses.

Their attorneys, who say the estimated number of class members exceeds
200,000 in Texas, want compensatory damages.  In court filings, a lawyer for
the plaintiffs stated that damages for each member of the class will be less
than $75,000.

Bill Wertz, a Wal-Mart spokesman in Bentonville, Arkansas, said courts
in Ohio, Louisiana and Oregon have ruled against plaintiffs' attorneys
seeking class-action certification for workers who have sued Wal-Mart
for wage abuses.  Wal-Mart's policy is to pay its employees for their
work and not ask them to work "off the clock," he said.  "If it's a
problem, it's not a pattern - it's an exception that needs to be
litigated on a case-by-case basis."

During a two-day court hearing, attorneys for the former Wal-Mart
workers presented an analysis of Wal-Mart time records at 14 stores that
showed employees missed 41,919 hours in rest and meal breaks during an
eight-week period.

"I have talked to Wal-Mart employees all around the country, and the
stories I hear are all the same.  Wal-Mart limits the hours its
employees can work, but not the work they have to do," said Russell T.
Lloyd of Houston, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Besides Wal-Mart Stores, also named as defendants are Sam's Club and
Sam's East.


WEST CORPORATION: OH State Court Denies Certification To Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio refused to certify a
class action naming telemarketing firm West Corporation as a defendant.  The
suit was initially commenced against two of the Company's clients, and was
later amended to include the Company as defendant.  The suit alleges:

     (1) violation of various provisions of Ohio's consumer protection
         laws,

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) breach of contract,

     (5) unjust enrichment and

     (6) civil conspiracy in connection with the marketing of certain
         membership programs offered by the Company's clients

The plaintiffs have already filed an interlocutory appeal to the 8th
District Court of Appeals for the state of Ohio.

The Company labeled the suit without merit and intends to mount a vigorous
defense against the suit.


WEST CORPORATION: Will Request Dismissal Due To Lack of Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------------
West Corporation intends to ask the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California to dismiss the claims against it and its
subsidiary, West Telemarketing Corporation, in a class action relating to
Memberworks Incorporated club memberships, for lack of jurisdiction.  The
suit was commenced in March 2002 and also names as defendants:

     (1) Memberworks Incorporated,

     (2) MWI Essentials,

     (3) MWI Leisure Advantage,

     (4) MWI Home & Garden,

     (5) MWI Connections and

     (6) MWI Valuemax

The suit alleges that class members were sold club memberships by misleading
means or billed for club memberships they did not purchase as a part of an
upsell offer after ordering another product.

The plaintiff asserts four separate claims, namely:

     (i) the defendants mailed unordered merchandise to the plaintiff
         and the similarly situated class members in violation of 39
         USC ss. 3009;

    (ii) conversion;

   (iii) unjust enrichment; and

    (iv) fraud

The purported class is composed of all persons in the United States
who, after calling a telephone number to inquire about or purchase another
product:

     (a) were sent a membership kit in the mail;

     (b) charged for a Memberworks membership program; and

     (c) were customers of a joint venture between Memberworks and the
         Company or were wholesale customers of the Company.

The Company intends to mount a vigorous defense against the suit.

                            Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of purchasers of Adelphia Business Solutions, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets:
ABIZQ) common stock during the period between January 6, 2000 and March 27,
2002, inclusive, against:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.classlawyer.com


ADVANCED FIBER: CA Court Yet To Decide on Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California
decision regarding Advanced Fiber Communications, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the securities class action against it, is still pending though it heard
arguments on the motion earlier this month.

The suit arose from several class actions commenced in July 1998 alleging
various federal and state securities law violations on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's stock for the period March 25, 1997 through and including
June 30, 1998.  These suits were ordered consolidated in November 1998.

The consolidated suit was amended three times, but the Court dismissed the
three amended suits, giving plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended suit,
which they did in July 2001.  On February 15, 2002, the defendants again
moved to dismiss the fourth suit.  Limited discovery then followed.

Based on current information, the Company believes the lawsuits are without
merit and that it has meritorious defenses to the actions. Accordingly, the
Company is vigorously defending the litigation.


ALLIED CAPITAL: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Allied Capital Corp. (NYSE:ALD) stock during the period
from November 14, 2001 through May 16, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Company, its auditor Arthur Andersen, LLP and its
Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers, violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations, according to
the complaint, stem from materially false and misleading financial
statements issued by the defendants during the class period that
misrepresented the Company's assets and financial performance and caused
Company stock to trade at artificially-inflated prices.

The complaint alleges that defendants, during the class period, misstated
the value of the Company's investments, and inflated the level of assets
reported by the Company, as a result of failing to write-down certain
investments that had substantially declined in value.

As the complaint alleges, defendants continued to value certain investments,
including the ompany's stakes in Velocita Corp. and the Loewen Group, Inc.,
at or near their original cost long after it had become apparent that such
valuations were outdated and no longer reflective of the true worth of the
investments.

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

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

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


CMS ENERGY: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against CMS Energy
Corporation (NYSE: CMS) and certain of its principal officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded
securities of the Company between August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market between August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company had, admittedly, throughout the
class period, improperly recognized $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 9, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Company had
engaged in round-trip trades with Dynegy, Inc.  On May 10, 2002, the Company
announced that the SEC was investigating the propriety of its "round-trip"
trading practices.  On May 13, 2002, Reliant Resources, Inc. disclosed that
it had also engaged in round-trip trades with the Company.  In response to
the announcements, Company 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 Sherrie R. Savett, Barbara A. Podell, Robin
Switzenbaum 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


CMS ENERGY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of CMS Energy Corp., (NYSE: CMS) 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 complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market between August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company had, throughout the class period,
improperly recognized approximately $4.4 billion in revenues by engaging in
transactions lacking any economic substance using what are known as
"round-trip" trading transactions. The improperly recognized revenues were,
according to the complaint, reported in the Company's quarterly and annual
press releases and in financial filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), throughout the class period.

On May 10, 2002, the Company announced that the SEC was investigating the
propriety of its "round-trip" trading practices. In response to the
announcement, 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 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 Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


CMS ENERGY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired CMS Energy Corporation
(NYSE: CMS) securities between August 3, 2000 and May 14, 2002, in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market between August 3, 2000 and May 14, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants entered into undisclosed bogus
electricity trades that inflated the Company's revenues and expenses by $4.4
billion over eighteen months from May 2000 through mid-January 2002, in
violation of the federal securities laws.

As a result of this fraudulent conduct, defendants misstated the Company's
financial results during the class period, thereby causing or permitting the
Company to issue materially false and misleading statements in the Company's
public reports filed with the SEC, press releases, and other public
documents concerning the Company's financial condition.

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


CONCORD CAMERA: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the shares of Concord Camera, Corp.
(Nasdaq: LENS) between January 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001, inclusive, in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 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 Company stock plummeted over
20% to close at $6.02.

For further 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 Concord Camera.


CONCORD CAMERA: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Concord Camera Corp. (Nasdaq:LENS)
securities between January 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
the Company and:

     (1) Ira B. Lampert, and

     (2) Harlan Press

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, 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 Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or
561-712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


DEPARTMENT 56: MN Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the
securities class action pending against Department 56, Inc. and its Chief
Executive Officer, Susan E. Engel.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from February
24,1999 to April 26,2000, alleges the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making a series of false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial statements.

The Court held oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March 22,2002, and
granted the motion in May 1,2002.


DYNEGY INC.: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond launched a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) securities
between April 17, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and:

     (1) Charles L. Watson,

     (2) Robert D. Doty, and

     (3) Stephen W. Bergstrom

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, 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 Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or
561-712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


EDISON SCHOOLS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities class
action against Edison Schools, Inc. (Nasdaq: EDSN) and three top officers
today, claiming the Company pumped up its stock price by improperly
reporting revenue, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common stock from November
11, 1999 through May 14, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company, a private operator of public
schools, misled investors by releasing false financial information about its
earnings.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, the Company issued
numerous quarterly press releases and filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting its supposedly growing revenue stream.
These figures were materially false and misleading, the complaint says,
because the Company improperly recognized as revenue money paid for teacher
salaries, student transportation, and utility bills.  In fact, the Company
never received the money because it was remitted directly to its "clients,"
namely local school districts and charter school boards.

The lawsuit also claims that despite significant shareholder losses during
the class period, the Company's President and CEO paid himself more than $5
million annually and in one year alone cashed out stock options in excess of
$15 million.  According to the complaint, other top executives sold blocks
of Company stock worth at least $5.5 million each.

On May 14, 2002, the Company announced 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 the company had reported for numerous
quarters.  That day, Company stock closed at $2.94 per share, down
significantly from a class period high of $36.75.

For more details, contact Julie Richmond by Mail: One Liberty Square,
Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bermanesq.com.


EXELON CORPORATION: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on
behalf of purchasers of Exelon Corporation (NYSE:EXC) common stock during
the period between April 24, 2001 and September 27, 2001, inclusive.

The 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
repeatedly issued statements concerning the strength of its operations and
repeatedly assured the market that it would meet or beat its $4.50 per share
projected earnings figure for 2001.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tanya Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336, Little Rock,
AR 72221-5336 by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


GENZYME TRANSGENICS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Employee Plan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Trangenics Corporation faces a US$5 million class action filed in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, by two
employees of its former subsidiary Primedica Argus Research Laboratories.
Primedica was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company until February 26,
2001, when the Company sold Primedica to Charles River Laboratories
International, Inc.

When Primedica was a Company subsidiary, the employees of Primedica and its
subsidiaries were eligible to participate in the Company's incentive stock
option plan.  When the Company sold Primedica to Charles River Laboratories,
it took the position that the employees of Primedica and its subsidiaries
had been "terminated" as employees of the Company or its affiliates for
purposes of the plan.  The Company informed the affected employees,
notifying them that pursuant to the plan any outstanding options would
expire 90 days after the sale of Primedica had closed.

The suit was filed purportedly on behalf of "all employees of Primedica
Corporation and its subsidiaries who, as of February 7, 2001 (the date the
Company announced the impending sale of Primedica), had been awarded stock
options (pursuant to the plan) and who had not yet exercised their options."
The plaintiffs contend that:

     (1) they have not been "terminated" within the meaning of the
         plan;

     (2) their options have not expired;

     (3) the Company breached an implied covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing with the plaintiffs by selling Primedica without
         making provision for its employees as holders of stock options
         and thereafter taking the position that the Company options
         expired 90 days after the sale; and

     (4) the Company was unjustly enriched by receiving the entire sale
         price for Primedica.

The Company denies all the material allegations of the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend the suit.


HI/FN INC.: Faces Three Derivative Lawsuits in CA Federal, State Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi/Fn, Inc. faces three purported shareholder derivative lawsuits; two
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and one in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Clara.

The derivative suits are related to the consolidated federal securities suit
pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
Northern District of California, alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws in connection with various public statements made by
the defendants during the class period.

The derivative suits were filed against the Company as nominal defendant and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The derivative
suits allege violations of California Corporations Code Section 25402,
breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the complaint are without
merit and intend to defend the action vigorously.


MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund between March
14, 2000 and October 15, 2001 inclusive, against Merrill Lynch & Company,
Inc. and others for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The Internet Strategies Fund merged with The Merrill Lynch Global Technology
Fund (NASDAQ:MAGTX) on October 15, 2001.

This action arises as a result of the issuance by the defendants of shares
in the Fund and of Merrill Lynch analyst reports regarding Internet
companies in the Fund, which recommended the purchase of shares of Internet
companies in the Fund and which set price targets for Internet companies
included in the Fund, without any reasonable factual basis.

Furthermore, when issuing shares of the Fund and their Internet Company
reports, the defendants failed to disclose significant, material conflicts
of interest which they had, in light of their use of defendant Henry
Blodget's reputation and his Internet companies' analyst reports, to obtain
investment banking business for Merrill Lynch.

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPWV) from October 16, 2000
through August 13, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that Merrill Lynch and its well-known Internet stock
analyst Henry Blodget violated the federal securities laws by knowingly
issuing false and misleading analyst reports regarding Openwave during the
class period.

Based on e-mails and other internal Merrill Lynch communications, which were
made public as a result of the investigation conducted by the New York State
Attorney General, Eliot L. Spitzer, the suit alleges that defendants failed
to disclose a significant conflict of interest between their investment
banking and research departments.

Specifically, Henry Blodget and other Merrill Lynch analysts issued very
favorable analyst reports regarding Openwave to the public when they
allegedly knew that the positive recommendations were unwarranted.

Unbeknownst to the investing public, Merrill Lynch's buy recommendations and
price targets for Openwave were influenced by Merrill Lynch's efforts to
attract lucrative investment banking business from Openwave and other
internet companies.

For more details,c ontact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman, Wayne T.
Boulton, or Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net


MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: US$2.7M Securities Suit Settlement Gains Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division granted final approval to a US$2.7 million settlement proposed by
Mitcham Industries, Inc. to settle a securities class action alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

The consolidated suit arose from several class actions commenced in April
1998 against the Company, Billy F. Mitcham and Roberto Rios, alleging
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

In August 2001, the Company executed the settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  The court later approved the settlement agreement, certified
the class for settlement purposes only, and entered a final order dismissing
all the lawsuits with prejudice.

The Company continued to deny any wrongdoing.  In a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said it settled the suit to
avoid protracted and expensive litigation.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class action against
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. and several of its present and former
directors and executive officers.

The consolidated suit relates to the period between October 27, 1999 and
October 10, 2000 and primarily alleges that the Company made false
projections about its financial performance in 2000.

The court dismissed the suit on April 18, 2002 and gave the plaintiffs until
May 17, 2002 to file an appeal.  The Company does not have any information
on whether the plaintiffs sought an appeal of this decision before the
deadline.


PEERLESS SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Amend Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peerless Systems Corporation faces a second amended consolidated securities
suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The suit charges the Company and two of its former officers of
violating federal securities laws.

The suit arose from two suits commenced in August 2000, alleging a scheme to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price based on alleged misleading
public announcements and seeking compensatory damages with interest and
attorneys fees and expenses.  The suits were later consolidated.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which was granted in January
14,2002, without prejudice.  The court allowed the plaintiffs sixty days to
file a second amended and consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs filed this
on March 15, 2002.

The Company labeled the second amended suit "without merit" and intends to
vigorously oppose it.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Reliant
Resources, Inc. (NYSE: RRI) 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 the Company's stock
on or traceable to the Company's initial public offering of 52 million
common shares at $30 per share on May 1, 2001.

The suit alleges claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 15 U.S.C. Section 77(k), on behalf of a class of the purchasers
of the Company's common stock on or traceable to the initial public offering
of 52 million common shares at $30 per share on May 1, 2001 (IPO), pursuant
to a registration statement and prospectus dated May 1, 2001.

Part of the Company's business involved wholesale energy trading.  On May
13, 2002, the Company disclosed that it had been conducting "round-trip"
trades in which it bought and sold power in simultaneous trades at the same
price and amount.  This conduct manipulated the market for energy by making
the market appear more active than it was and by making the Company's
business appear more substantial than it actually was.

Such trades were conducted solely to generate volume in order to make the
Company appear to be a bigger player in the wholesale energy market and
achieve a higher ranking in the quarterly sales rankings of power traders.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires wholesale
electricity marketers to file quarterly reports of transactions, including
the size, location and names of their trading partners, which reports are
used by trade publications to compile rankings of top traders.  A high
ranking indicated that the Company was well equipped to handle large
transactions, to attract more traders and to win long-term supply contracts
with large utility customers.  Energy traders sought out a high ranking
because it made them a more desirable business partner.

The Company ranked second on the list of power marketers in the fourth
quarter of 2001, but without the "round-trip" trades, which it admitted
totaled 78 million megawatt hours in 2001, or 1/5 of reported volume, it
would have only ranked seventh.

The "round-trip" or phantom trades improperly inflated the Company's
revenues by approximately 10% during the period from 1999 through 2001.  The
Company admitted that it engaged in "round-trip" trades of 30 million
megawatt hours (MWH) in 1999 or approximately 26% of the 112 million MWH
reported in the Prospectus for the year ended December 31, 1999, and 30
million MWH in 2000 or approximately 14% of the 201 million MWH reported in
the Prospectus for the year ended December 31, 2000.

The prospectus contained materially false and misleading representations of
the volume of the Company's energy trading as well as its revenues.

When the Company's participation in the "round-trip" trades was finally
disclosed, the price of its stock dropped to a low of $8.43 on May 14, 2002.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Barbara A. Podell 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


SAF T LOK: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Saf T Lok Corporation
(OTCBB: LOCK) between April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, inclusive in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida against the
Company and:

     (1) Franklin W. Brooks,

     (2) Jeffrey W. Brooks,

     (3) William Schmidt,

     (4) James E. Winner, Jr.,

     (5) John Hornbostel, Jr. and

     (6) Goldberg Wagner Stump and Jacobs LLP

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 April
14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants filed
materially false and misleading financial statements with the US Securities
& Exchange Commission, which, among other things, did not comply with
generally accepted accounting principles.

Specifically, at the start of the class period, defendants disclosed that
the Company had terminated its exclusive consumer market distribution
agreement with United Safety Action, Inc. (USA) and that the Company itself
would now be permitted to market its products to retail customers.

The complaint alleges that the financial statements filed by defendants
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) a catalog retailer had previously obtained Company products
         from USA at a sharply reduced price and was now selling these
         products at extremely low prices, thereby limiting the market
         opportunity for the Company;

    (ii) the Company's earnings, assets and shareholder equity were
         overstated by at least $3.2 million; and

   (iii) the Company's inventories were not stated at the lower of cost
         or market, as represented

When this information was finally disclosed on April 16, 2001, the last day
of the class period, the Company's stock price fell to under $0.30 per
share.  Subsequently, on May 15, 2001, the Company's securities were
delisted from the NASDAQ Small Cap Market and are currently traded on the
OTC (Over The Counter) Bulletin Board.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole, Gustzvo
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 Saf T Lok.


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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tanya Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336, Little Rock,
AR 72221-5336 by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


SEITEL INC.: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC commenced a securities class action against Seitel,
Inc. (NYSE: SEI) 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 the publicly traded securities of the
Company between May 5, 2000 and May 3, 2002.

According to the suit, the defendants materially misrepresented the
Company's financial results for fiscal year 2000 and the first three
quarters of fiscal 2001 by improperly recognizing revenues.  Most of the
improper revenue, the complaint alleges, was attributable to the Company's
undisclosed practice of recording revenue for the licensing of its seismic
data and other geophysical information before delivering data to customers
and prior to the customers determining which data they intended to license.

The practice ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles and
artificially inflated the Company's stock price during the class period, the
complaint says.

The complaint alleges that the defendants were motivated to commit the
accounting fraud in order to earn commissions and bonuses, which were tied
to the Company's revenues and earnings, and claims the defendants, while in
possession of undisclosed adverse information about the Company, engaged in
over $10.6 million of illegal insider stock sales during the class period.

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

After the Company further detailed the restatements on May 3, 2002, its
stock price plunged to $5.16 per share by the next trading day, more than
77% below the class period high of $23.03 per share, the complaint says.

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 Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Universal Access Global Holdings, Inc.
(Nasdaq:UAXS) securities between May 10, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
against the Company and:

     (1) Universal Access Global Holdings, Inc.,

     (2) Patrick C. Shutt,

     (3) Robert M. Brown,

     (4) Robert E. Rainone, Jr.,

     (5) George A. King,

     (6) Robert J. Pommer,

     (7) Scott D. Fehlan, and

     (8) Paolo Guidi

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, 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 Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or
561-712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


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

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the class
period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout
the class period, the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of the evidence
of the efficacy of Picovir in reducing the duration and severity of symptoms
of the common cold.

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

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


                              *********

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  * * *