CAR_Public/020530.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Thursday, May 30, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 106

                              Headlines

BAYCOL LITIGATION: Kenneth Moll Sues On Behalf of Canadian Consumers
CHIRON INC.: Named as Defendant in Medicare Antitrust Suit in MA Court
EBAY INC.: CA Court Hears Appeal On Suit Over "Fake" Sports Memorabilia
EL PASO: CA Gas Market Manipulation, Shareholder Suits Underway
GENDER BIAS: EEOC Ordered To Pay Law Firm Due to Conduct During Suit

SARA LEE: Agrees To Settle Racial Discrimination Suits In E.D. PA
SHAW'S STORES: Food and Commercial Workers Sue Over "Time-Off Rip-off"
SHELL CANADA: Canadian Consumers Sue Over Car-Damaging Gas Cover-up
UTI WORLDWIDE: Asserts Defenses in Suit Over Chemicals Used in Gulf War
VERISIGN INC.: Faces Suit Over Deceptive "Expiration" Notices in CA

WASHINGTON: Supreme Court to Review State's Social Security Policy

*Senate Throws Out Bill Requiring Payment of Illegal Immigrant Workers

                           Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in PA
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in OR
DT INDUSTRIES: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

EAGLE BUILDING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
EDISON SCHOOLS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
FLAG TELECOM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ITXC CORPORATION: Suits May Present "Management, Financial Drain" in NY
LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NUCENTRIX BROADBAND: Agrees To Settle Two Securities Fraud Suits in TX
PATHOGENESIS CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit in WA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Cohen Milstein Expands Securities Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA

PROTON ENERGY: Will Vigorously Defend V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY
RARE MEDIUM: Presenting Settlement Papers in Suit Over Motient Merger
RELIANT RESOURCES: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
RESONATE INC.: Securities Suit Alleges Underwriters' Impropriety in NY
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Termination of MDI Acquisition Renders Suit Moot

SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in CA
STILLWATER MINING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Second Amended Suit
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Derivative Suit in CA

TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Files Demurrer To Derivative Securities Suit in CA
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
                             
                              *********

BAYCOL LITIGATION: Kenneth Moll Sues On Behalf of Canadian Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd., filed a class action on behalf of
all Canadians who have used the potentially deadly anti-cholesterol
drug Baycol, which was recalled on August 8, 2001, in the United States
District Court in Minnesota.

The lawsuit, known as the "Canadian Class Action Complaint," was filed
on behalf of all persons in Canada who took or purchased the drug
Baycol after March 2, 1998.  It seeks recoveries for all persons who
took Baycol and have not yet manifested physical injury, all persons
who were physically injured as a result of taking Baycol and all
persons who purchased Baycol for personal or family use.

The firm also filed a lawsuit on behalf of individual Canadians who
used Baycol and were injured, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The Illinois lawsuit names 20
Canadians who have suffered death or other personal injuries related to
their usage of Baycol.

On January 18, 2002, Bayer AG announced that it is aware of over 100
deaths related to the use of Baycol, which is double an earlier
estimate of 52.  An estimated 6,000,000 people worldwide were
prescribed Baycol to reduce cholesterol.

For more information, contact Kenneth B. Moll by Phone: 312-558-6444 by
Fax: 312-558-1112 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kbmoll.com


CHIRON INC.: Named as Defendant in Medicare Antitrust Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical company Chiron, Inc. was named as one of the 29
defendants in a class action filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by advocacy group Citizens for
Consumer Justice and 13 other named plaintiffs.

The suit names biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies as defendants
in connection with setting average wholesale prices for various
products, including the Company's DepoCytr, which are reimbursed by
Medicare.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated federal
antitrust and racketeering laws by devising and implementing a
fraudulent pricing scheme against Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
eliminated the antitrust allegations and changed the subject drug from
DepoCytr to Mitomycinr, a generic oncology drug sold by the Cetus-Ben
Venue Therapeutics partnership.

The Company states in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it does not know when or on what basis the suit will be
resolved.


EBAY INC.: CA Court Hears Appeal On Suit Over "Fake" Sports Memorabilia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in San Diego California heard the plaintiffs' appeal
of the dismissal of the class action against Internet auctioneer eBay,
Inc. last April 10,2002.

The suit was commenced in April 2000 on behalf of a purported class of
eBay users who purchased allegedly forged autographed sports
memorabilia on eBay.  The suit claims the Company was negligent in
permitting certain named (and other unnamed) defendants to sell
allegedly forged autographed sports memorabilia on eBay.

In addition, the lawsuit charges the Company with violations of
California unfair competition law, and a section of the California
Civil Code which prohibits "dealers" from selling sports memorabilia
without a "Certificate of Authenticity."  

In January 2001, the Court issued a ruling dismissing all claims
against the Company in the lawsuit.  The Court ruled that its business
falls within the safe harbor provisions of 47 USC 230, which grants
Internet service providers such as eBay immunity from state claims
based on the conduct of third parties.  The court also noted that the
Company was not a "dealer" under California law and thus not required
to provide certificates of authenticity with autographs sold over our
site by third parties.  The plaintiffs then appealed this ruling.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend
itself vigorously.


EL PASO: CA Gas Market Manipulation, Shareholder Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against El Paso Corporation and several of its
subsidiaries in California state courts are at their preliminary
pleading stages.  

The suits contend that the Company's entities acted improperly to limit
the construction of new pipeline capacity to California and/or to
manipulate the price of natural gas sold into the California
marketplace.  Trial in these suits is not anticipated until late 2003
at the earliest.

The Company and its directors also face a shareholder derivative suit,
originally filed in California, contending that its directors failed to
prevent the conduct alleged in several of these underlying lawsuits.
The suit was dismissed and re-filed in Texas in March 2002.

The Company intends to mount a vigorous defense against these suits and
is confident that they will not have a material effect on its financial
position or operations.


GENDER BIAS: EEOC Ordered To Pay Law Firm Due to Conduct During Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Accusing the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) of "unreasonable and just plain mean-spirited" conduct, a judge,
ordered the agency to pay $386,000 to a law firm that it sued
unsuccessfully for sexual harassment and discrimination, the Los
Angeles Times reported recently.

Federal Judge Dickran Tevrizian issued the order after dismissing the
EEOC's class action against Robert L. Reeves & Associates, an
immigration law firm in Pasadena with about 40 employees.  In awarding
attorney fees and court costs to the firm, the largest ever assessed
against the EEOC, Judge Tevrizian invoked a rarely used sanction in
civil rights law that allows judges to compensate defendants who are
targeted by lawsuits that are "frivolous, unreasonable or without
foundation."

Anna Y. Park, EEOC regional attorney in Los Angeles, disputed Judge
Tevrizian's characterization of the case, saying numerous witnesses
corroborated the allegations against Mr. Reeves.  She said an appeal is
being considered.

The EEOC is charged with enforcing federal law prohibiting employers
from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or
national origin.  The files 300 to 400 workplace discrimination suits a
year and has been assessed attorney fees and court costs only four
times since 1999, according to the agency's public affairs office in
Washington, DC.

This case involved allegations that 12 female employees, including
attorneys and secretaries, were sexually harassed by Mr. Reeves, or
were fired because they were pregnant.  Several women complained that
they were subjected to inappropriate touching, leering and sexual
remarks.  Mr. Reeves denied the allegations.

Judge Tevrizian wrote in his order that the EEOC could have pursued
three of those claims as potentially valid.  Instead, he said, the
agency brought a class action on behalf of a dozen women, "four of
whose claims it knew had absolutely no foundation, and five others
which it knew or should have known were groundless."

Ultimately, Judge Tevrizian dismissed all the claims, saying they did
not rise to the level of misconduct under the law, that is, the
plaintiff has not shown, as the plaintiff must in sexual harassment
suits, that the wrongdoing was so severe or pervasive that it gave rise
to a hostile work environment.  Judge Tevrizian wrote that he did not
condone any of the acts of sexual harassment alleged in the lawsuit,
even though he had to dismiss the case on legal grounds.

The Judge also criticized the agency for employing "heavy-handed and
out of bounds" tactics in the case.  Although the commission is
required by law to make a good-faith effort to resolve cases through
conciliation, Judge Tevrizian said the EEOC laid down conditions that
doomed the conciliation process from the start.

For example, the agency demanded $1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages to settle the case, but at the same time refused to
disclose the names of the alleged victims or details of their
complaints.  When the law firm balked, the agency pronounced the
conciliation a failure and took the case to court.

In an interview, Ms. Park maintained that the allegations against Mr.
Reeves were thoroughly investigated.  She said the Judge failed to look
at the case in its entirety.  "In sexual harassment cases, you have to
look at the totality of the circumstances," she said.  "Instead, the
judge piecemealed them out.  That goes against US Supreme Court
precedent."

Ms. Park also said that Judge Tevrizian failed to take into account
that all of the complaints were directed against Mr. Reeves, the owner
and most powerful person in the law firm.  "That was the theory of our
case, and it was completely disregarded by the court," she said.

The EEOC began the investigation in 1997 when a receptionist filed a
complaint with the agency saying she was fired because she became
pregnant.  The law firm says she was fired because of poor performance.
The case was dormant until 1999, when two other female employees filed
harassment charges.  Both these women were close friends of two lawyers
who had left the firm in a dispute with Mr. Reeves.

In court paper, Mr. Reeves accused his former associates, Daniel P.
Hanlon and Colin T. Greene, of getting the women to make the sexual
harassment claims in an effort to ruin his reputation.  Mr. Hanlon
called Mr. Reeves' charge ludicrous, but the Judge gave credence to Mr.
Reeves' account.  "See, I look at this case as one where the EEOC was
used by the departing partners of the law firm," the Judge said,
according to a court transcript.

"Duped?  That is absurd," said Ms. Park.  She pointed out that the EEOC
had received complaints about Mr. Reeves' conduct from women who had
nothing to do with his former partners.


SARA LEE: Agrees To Settle Racial Discrimination Suits In E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee Foods and a group of its former employees entered a
comprehensive settlement of litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Civil actions
filed on behalf of 139 individual African-American former employees all
concerned employment disputes related to a food processing plant in
Philadelphia, including the closure of that facility in August 2001.

An initial lawsuit filed by nine employees sought class action status
alleging past acts of racial discrimination and hostile work
environment conditions.  However, Judge Lowell Reed denied class
certification to suit.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld
this decision. Plaintiffs then individually filed separate lawsuits.

While these cases were pending, the plant was closed.  This prompted
further litigation including a new class action alleging retaliation in
the decision to close the plant.

The settlement resulted from negotiations supervised by United States
Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa, and covers all pending cases.  
Specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but it was
acknowledged that individual settlements did vary depending on
employment tenure, filing as an original lead plaintiff and other
factors. The settlement of all 140 claims included a payment of $3.5
million together with a complete dismissal of the retaliation class
action complaint.

On behalf of plaintiffs, attorneys Robert Vance and Stephen Whinston of
the law firm of Berger & Montague PC, noted their satisfaction with the
final settlement. "We are pleased that we have reached a fair and
amicable settlement. The plaintiffs are now able to move forward with
their lives and focus on their futures," said Mr. Vance.

William A. Geoppinger, chief executive officer of Sara Lee Foods, said,
"Sara Lee Foods is committed to a workplace free from any form of
harassment or discrimination."  Geoppinger emphasized that the decision
to close the Philadelphia plant was based purely on business factors,
and that the Company would not tolerate harassment of any kind.

For more information, contact Julie Ketay of Sara Lee Foods by Phone:
312-558-8727 or Stephen Whinston of Berger & Montague, PC by Phone:
215-875-3097.


SHAW'S STORES: Food and Commercial Workers Sue Over "Time-Off Rip-off"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Local 1445 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW)
filed a class action in behalf of Worcester, Massachusetts employees of
Shaw's food stores for alleged labor violations.

The union filed the suit after long term Shaw's employees in Worcester
got a holiday surprise a few months late when they found out that the
foreign-owned supermarket operator had charged them retroactively for
their previously paid 2001 Christmas and 2002 New Year holidays.

As part of Shaw's alleged campaign to bust the workers' union, the
Company unilaterally announced on February 28 that it would no longer
recognize the union contract that provided the paid holidays.  The
Company then decided on April 1 to back track on the paid time off and
charge employees for previous holiday time.

The suit covers all employees who may have been charged for their
holiday time. The Company is already under federal investigation for
alleged labor law violations, including making illegal unilateral
changes in working conditions.

The contract terms' dismissal cost some employees more than the holiday
pay.  A veteran employee with 18 years of service had scheduled a long-
awaited family vacation to Disney World.  Under his UFCW contract, he
had three weeks of vacation.  When Shaw's reneged on the promises made
in the union contract, he lost his Disney vacation time, and his family
didn't have Dad along for their trip of a lifetime.

The suit would get back the contracted time off for any of the 1,700
Shaw's employees who lost time.  The grievance demands that the Company
restore all paid holiday, vacation, sick and personal time due
employees under the contract.  All affected employees would be made
whole for any and all loss of pay and benefits that they suffered as
the result of Shaw's action.

For more details, contact Greg Denier of the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union by Phone: 202-466-1591 or visit the Web site:
http://www.ufcw.org


SHELL CANADA: Canadian Consumers Sue Over Car-Damaging Gas Cover-up
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A British Columbia woman filed a class action against Shell Canada for
not doing enough to notify consumers about a problem with its gasoline
that may have damaged fuel gauges in thousands of vehicles across
Canada, The Associated Press has reported.

Dorothy Young of Port Alberni filed the statement of claim in British
Columbia Supreme Court, accusing the Company not only of selling
gasoline that damaged her vehicle, but also of continuing to sell the
fuel when the Company knew there was a problem with it, and then trying
to keep the issue quiet.

For months, the Company has been quietly compensating customers after
acknowledging that one of its additives seemed to be gumming up fuel
pumps and fuel sensors.  Fuel lights in affected cars began to blink
`empty' even though the tank was full.  The needles on gas gauges were
swinging back and forth seemingly randomly.

The gas was distributed nationwide.  The Company stopped using the
additive in March.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Asserts Defenses in Suit Over Chemicals Used in Gulf War
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight and cargo Company UTI Worldwide, Inc. was named as a defendant
in a consolidated class action pending in the 23rd Judicial District
Court of Brazaria County, Texas.  The suit charges 83 companies with
selling chemicals that were utilized in the Gulf War by the Iraqi army
which caused personal injuries to US armed services personnel and their
families, including birth defects.

The suits were brought on behalf of the military personnel who served
in the Gulf War and their families and the plaintiffs are seeking in
excess of $1 billion in damages.  To date, the plaintiffs have not
obtained class certification.

The Company believes it was named as a defendant in the suit solely
because an entity that sold it assets in 1993 is a defendant.  The
Company believes it will prevail in this matter because the alleged
actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to its purchase of the
assets.  The Company further believes that it will ultimately prevail
in this matter since it has never manufactured chemicals.  The
plaintiffs have been unable to thus far produce evidence that the
Company acted as a freight forwarder for cargo that included chemicals
used by the Iraqi army.


VERISIGN INC.: Faces Suit Over Deceptive "Expiration" Notices in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Verisign, Inc. faces a class action filed in the California Superior
Court in connection with its alleged mailing of thousands of deceptive
"expiration" notices.

The suit alleges that the Company engaged in deceptive or unfair acts
and practices in violation of California's consumer protection statutes
by sending out official-looking Domain Name Expiration Notices that
falsely implied that the recipient's domain name was due to expire and
further implying that the only way to prevent this from occurring was
to pay a $29 "renewal" fee. It is further alleged that, in actuality,
payment of the fee transferred the domain name in question from its
current domain name registrar to the Company.

The complaint was filed pursuant to the "Private Attorney General"
provisions of the Unfair Competition Laws and seeks to represent all
persons who received such a letter and, based on this false and
misleading advertising, have paid the $29 fee.

For more details, contact Zev B. Zysman or Weiss & Yourman -Los Angeles
by Phone: 800-437-7918 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wyca.com


WASHINGTON: Supreme Court to Review State's Social Security Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court will review Washington's practice of
applying for benefits on behalf of foster children, then using the
money to reimburse foster parents for things like food and clothing,
the Associated Press reports.

The ruling, expected sometime next year, will have far-reaching
implications because every state has a system of collecting Social
Security payments on behalf of children in state custody, the Court was
told.

Justices will look at a technical question involving Washington State's
mechanism for inserting themselves as the money collectors for
children, then deciding how to use it. However, the basic issue is
this: Are poor children in state care being short-changed or helped by
the intervention?

The case was brought over benefits of a foster child whose mother was
killed in a car crash. As the guardian of his estate, his grandmother,
Wanda Pierce, received the benefits and put them in a college fund.

The state sought to get the money, and she filed a class action
lawsuit.

One of Pierce's lawyers, Teresa Wynn Roseborough, told the Court that
the money belongs to the children, not the government, and that the
states do not always use the cash in its children's best interest.

Ms. Roseborough urged the Court not to use the Washington system to
address the issue, calling it a "muddled mess."

On the other side were two dozen states and a group of children's
advocates who want the Court to make clear that states can continue the
practice.

The case turns on whether the state youth department acts as a
creditor, billing children for their care then using the Social
Security benefits to pay the bills. Federal law protects Social
Security from creditors.

There are more than a half million children in foster care in America,
and about 25 percent of those are disabled and may be eligible for
Social Security, the court was told.

Groups including the Children's Defense Fund and Catholic Charities
told the court that states are "the last line of defense for children
in foster care." If states aren't allowed to seek benefits for children
"it is likely that no one will," the groups said in a filing.

If the Washington state foster children win, states could be required
to pay back the money. In Florida alone, that could be hundreds of
millions of dollars, Attorney General Robert A. Butterworth told the
Court. Nationwide, it could cost billions, he said in court papers.

In addition to Florida, urging the Court to take the case were Alaska,
Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Washington State has about 10,000 children in foster care, and about
1,500 of them receive benefits under Social Security either because
they are disabled or they are entitled to benefits of their deceased
parents.

The state social services agency handles the paperwork for benefits.

The state Supreme Court ruled last year that the system was illegal.

"However worthy cost recovery might be, DSHS cannot violate federal law
at the expense of foster children to accomplish it," Washington Supreme
Court Justice Richard Sanders wrote for the majority in the 5-3 ruling.

Pierce's dispute with the state dates back to 1990. The state never
took over the benefits for her grandson, Danny Keffeler, and he went on
to attend college with the money she saved.


*Senate Throws Out Bill Requiring Payment of Illegal Immigrant Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Senate recently rejected a bill that would have
required employers to pay employees for performed work regardless of
the workers' national origin or immigration status, Associated Press
Newswires reported.

Similar legislation had passed the House.  Critics of the bill said its
passage would encourage illegal immigration.  Supporters argued, on the
other hand, that the issue was fairness, not immigration status, since
everyone has a right to be paid for work they perform.

The Congress had taken on this issue after the Supreme Court's recent
decision to deny back pay to an undocumented worker.  The result of
this decision was a rash of employers across the nation testing the
limits of this decision, some seeking to use the ruling to avoid
minimum wage guidelines and workers' compensation awards, according to
an April report in the Los Angeles Times.  Employers even began asking
for the documents of a worker who complained of sexual harassment,
according to advocates for low-wage workers.

The High Court's decision has engendered a great deal of confusion and
fear, even though during oral arguments and in the written decision,
the court expressed that they did not intend to abolish all workplace
rights for illegal immigrants.

Yet that has happened, which dissenters on the Court, along with labor
unions, immigrant-rights groups and a coalition of business groups, who
filed briefs on behalf of the undocumented worker, feared would happen,
the increased, indiscriminate exploitation of immigrant workers by
unscrupulous employers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

"It is amazing, the quickness of employer response to this," said Ana
Avendano Denier, an attorney with the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, which represents thousand of immigrant workers in meat
and poultry plants.  "Some are intentionally reading it (the decision)
too broadly, but there also is a lot of misunderstanding about what the
Court said."

It will probably be years before the ruling is fully interpreted by
lower courts, attorneys are saying, although judges in state and
federal courts in California already have taken a narrow view of the
decision, the Los Angeles Times has reported.  In Los Angeles, a US
District Court judge decided the immigrant status of supermarket
janitors was not relevant in a class action that sought to collect
minimum wages for years of work.  A San Diego Superior Court judge
decided a taco stand worker who was paid $2 an hour for seven years was
entitled to $32,000 for the missing minimum wage.  In both cases,
employers unsuccessfully cited the recent Supreme Court decision.

                           Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all open
market purchasers of the common stock of Adelphia Communications
Corporation (NYSE:ADLAC) during the period of March 30, 2000 and April
1, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendant the Company and its
controlling persons John J. Rigas and Timothy J. Rigas.

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

The Company provides telecommunications services primarily over
networks that are commonly referred to as broadband networks. Like
other telecommunications companies in the United States, the Company is
enormously leveraged and depends heavily on debt offerings to help
finance the huge cost of maintaining a communications network.

The complaint alleges that in response to its need to secure additional
financing, the Company concocted a scheme to keep existing debt off its
balance sheets.  The individual defendants controlled partnerships to
which the Company provided management and consulting services.  The
partnerships borrowed billions of dollars, guaranteed by the Company,
but not recorded on the Company's balance sheet.

By keeping the guaranteed debt off its record books, the Company was
able to report favorable financial results throughout the class period,
which artificially inflated the price of Company stock.  The Company
used these same financial results to facilitate the issuance of shares
and debt during the class period.

When, on March 27, 2002, news of the undisclosed debt reached the
market the price of Company shares plunged $3.69, or 18%, to $16.70 on
very heavy trading.  The amount of undisclosed debt guaranteed by the
Company was initially reported by the Company to be $2.3 billion.  

On April 3, 2002, the Company announced the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) had launched an investigation into its financial
reporting.  News of the SEC investigation sent the price of Company
shares plunging a further 6.7%, on heavy trading.

On April 3, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Company had
at least $2.7 billion in off-balance-sheet debt associated with the
partnerships.  The Company has indicated it may restate three years of
financial reporting.  On or about May 23, 2002, the Company announced
that members of the Rigas family had relinquished all Board seats and
executive positions. The stock currently trades at under $3 per share.

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


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE:
BMY) between September 19, 2001 and January 4, 2002, inclusive, against
the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making itself, and allowing its drug development partner to
make, without correction, materially false and misleading statements
about the progress of its Erbitux cancer treatment drug's application
for FDA approval even as the Company knew that the application and data
were false.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on December 28, 2001, a press
release disclosed that the FDA had rejected the filing of a Biologics
License Application for Erbitux.  On January 4, 2002, The Cancer Letter
reported that the FDA repeatedly informed defendants about problems
with the Erbitux clinical trials during the Class Period.

These shocking revelations caused the stock to plummet from a class
period high of $56 to below $50, and now to $40.

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    


COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on
behalf of purchasers of Computerized Thermal Imaging (Amex: CIO) common
stock during the period between October 11, 1999 and December 21, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company has admitted that during the class period, the Company's then-
President and Chief Operating Officer, David Packer, consistently made
material public misrepresentations regarding FDA approval of the
Company's Breast Cancer Detection System.

These statements had the effect of artificially raising the price of
Company stock so that investors who purchased its shares during the
class period did so at inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

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: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in OR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Computerized Thermal Imaging,
Inc. (Amex: CIO) common stock between October 11, 1999 and December 21,
2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company has admitted that during the class period, its then-President
and Chief Operating Officer, David Packer, consistently made material
public misrepresentations regarding FDA approval of the Company's
Breast Cancer Detection System.  

These statements had the effect of artificially raising the price of
Company stock so that investors who purchased Company shares during the
class period did so at inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

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


DT INDUSTRIES: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DT Industries, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri to dismiss the second consolidated
securities class action pending against DT Industries and its
subsidiaries, Kalish Inc. and Sencorp Systems Inc.  

The suits alleged violations of Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during various periods, all of which fall between September 29, 1997
and August 23, 2000.  The suit specifically alleges, among other
things, that accounting irregularities caused the Company's previously
issued financial statements to be materially false and misleading.

The Company intends to defend against the suit vigorously.  While it is
not feasible to predict or determine the final outcome of the suit,
management believes the Company and its officers and directors have
adequate liability insurance to cover the liabilities, costs and
expenses arising out of the suit.  However, the Company cannot give any
assurance that the suit will not have a material adverse impact on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.


EAGLE BUILDING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
Eagle Building Technologies, Inc., previously known as Eagle Capital
International, Ltd. (OTC: EGBT.PK) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of purchasers of Company securities from December
31,2000 to September 30, 2001.

The complaint asserts claims against the defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that as a
result of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's products, operations and financial results, its securities
traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period.

The complaint further alleges that the artificial inflation continued
until the time Company acknowledged that its prior financial results,
from December 31, 2000 to September 30, 2001, were overstated and that
certain press releases issued by the Company concerning post-September
11th security measures marketed by the Company may have been false and
misleading.

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    


EDISON SCHOOLS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond lodged a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Edison Schools, Inc. (Nasdaq:EDSN)
securities between November 10, 1999 and May 14, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Adam Field and
Christopher Whittle.

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,
561/712-8000 by E-Mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


FLAG TELECOM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of FLAG Telecom
Holdings, Ltd. (Nasdaq: FTHL) from March 23, 2001 through February 13,
2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Andres Bande (CEO and Chairman),

     (2) Edward McCormack (Chief Operating Officer),

     (3) Andrew Evans (Chief Technology Officer) and

     (4) Larry Bautista (Chief Financial Officer until August 2001)

The suit alleges the defendants issued false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial condition.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that throughout the class period, the Company
reported strong year-over-year revenue growth. Unbeknownst to
investors, however, as alleged in the complaint, the Company was
experiencing diminishing revenue growth.

The complaint alleges that in order to create the impression that the
Company was continuing to experience growth, the Company engaged in a
series of reciprocal transactions with certain competitors for the
purchase and sale of dark fiber optic cable, the so-called "dark fiber
swap."  The complaint alleges that as a result of these transactions,
the Company artificially inflated its operating results and materially
misrepresented its financial results at all relevant times.

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    


ITXC CORPORATION: Suits May Present "Management, Financial Drain" in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ITX Corporation faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between September 27,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (3) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated,

     (4) Tom I. Evslin, and

     (5) Edward B. Jordan

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.  In a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
stated that "Litigation of such matters may present a drain on the
management and financial resources of the Company and adverse outcomes
in such lawsuits could materially adversely affect our financial
condition or operating results."
      

LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond launched a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Light Management Group, Inc.
(OTCBB:LMGR) securities between June 9, 1999 and November 20, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Barrington L. Simon,

     (2) Donald J. Iwacha,

     (3) Eve Sigfrid,

     (4) Greg Amur,

     (5) James E. Slayton, CPA, and

     (6) Feldman, Sherb & Co., PC

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund
(Fund: MANTX) common stock during the period between March 14, 2000 and
October 15, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges Merrill Lynch & Co. and others with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its recommendations of shares of
Internet companies in the Fund.  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 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


NUCENTRIX BROADBAND: Agrees To Settle Two Securities Fraud Suits in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nucentrix Broadband Networks, Inc. agreed to settle two securities
class actions pending in Texas state and federal courts alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

The first suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its
former officers and directors.  The suit involved federal securities
laws claims brought by two former stockholders of Heartland Wireless
Communications, Inc.  In June 2000, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In addition, three of the Company's former officers and directors were
co-defendants in a class action originally filed in State District
Court in Kleburg County, Texas, alleging state securities laws
violations, misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims.

In 2001, the parties in both suits executed settlement agreements for
the respective lawsuits.  In January 2002, the Court in the state suit
approved the settlement and entered a final judgment and order of
dismissal with prejudice in this matter.

In March 2002, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal in the federal
suit pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into in that lawsuit.
All amounts payable by the defendants in the settlement of both suits
will be covered by the proceeds from the Company's primary directors
and officers liability insurance policy.

Accordingly, this settlement will not have a material adverse effect on
the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows of the Company.


PATHOGENESIS CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit in WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal
of a consolidated securities class action against Pathogenesis
Corporation, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period started January 15, 1999 to March 22, 1999.

The suit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company, its chief executive
officer, and its chief financial officer, alleging that the Company and
its officers violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws
by making statements in early 1999 regarding the Company's 1998
financial results.

The Court later dismissed the consolidated cases and bars plaintiffs
from filing another lawsuit on the matter.  The plaintiffs then filed
an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Cohen Milstein Expands Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC expanded the securities class
action pending against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRGN) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California,
to include persons who purchased the Company's stock during the period
July 19,2000 to May 3,2002.

The suit charges Peregrine and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  

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

Before the market opened on Monday, May 6, 2002, the Company shocked
the market by announcing that its board of directors had authorized an
internal investigation into accounting inaccuracies, totaling as much
as $100 million.  The Company disclosed that these transactions and
other accounting matters to be investigated may impact financial
results for periods in fiscal 2002 and prior. Simultaneously the board
of directors announced that the Company's Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer had both
resigned all of their positions with the Company.

For more details, contact Matthew J. Ide or Clarence Williams by Mail:
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98104 by Phone: 206-521-0080
by Fax: 206-521-0166 by E-mail: mide@cmht.com or cwilliams@cmht.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.com


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRGN) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California,
on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common stock from
July 19, 2000 through May 3, 2002.

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

The complaint states that news of the problems came to light May 6,
2002, when the Company disclosed an internal investigation into
potential accounting inaccuracies in fiscal 2001 and 2002 - revenue
recognition irregularities that could total up to $100 million.

In the same statement, the Company announced the resignations of
Stephen Gardner, the company's chief executive officer, and Matthew
Gless, its executive vice president of finance.  The suit names Gardner
and Gless as individual defendants.

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

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


PROTON ENERGY: Will Vigorously Defend V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Proton Energy Systems, Inc. faces several securities class actions
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock from September 28, 2000 through and including December 6, 2000.  
The suits name the Company, several of its officers and directors, and
the underwriters of its September 28, 2000 initial public offering
(IPO) as defendants.

The suits are substantially similar and allege that the Company's IPO
registration statement and final prospectus contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions related, in part, to excessive and
undisclosed commissions allegedly received by the underwriters from
investors to whom the underwriters allegedly allocated shares of the
IPO.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims made in
the complaints and intends to contest the lawsuits vigorously.  
However, there can be no assurance that it will be successful, and an
adverse resolution of the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect
on its financial position and results of operation.


RARE MEDIUM: Presenting Settlement Papers in Suit Over Motient Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rare Medium Group, Inc. expects to present settlement papers for the
securities class action pending against them in the Delaware Chancery
Court by May 2002.  This will pave the way for the dismissal of the
suit, which challenged the merger between the Company and Motient
Corporation.

The suit names the Company, its board of directors, the holders of the
Company's preferred stock and certain of their affiliated entities, and
Motient as defendants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached duties allegedly owed to the holders of the Company's common
stock in connection with the merger agreement, and include allegations
that:

     (1) the holders of the Company's preferred stock engaged in self-
         dealing in the proposed merger;

     (2) the Company's Board of Directors allegedly breached its
         fiduciary duties by agreeing to distribute the merger
         consideration differently among the Company's common and
         preferred shares; and

     (3) Motient allegedly aided and abetted the supposed breaches of
         fiduciary duties.

On April 15, 2002, the plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that the
parties in the suit had agreed upon a settlement.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of all open market purchasers of the
common stock of Reliant Resources, Inc. during the period of May 1,
2001 and May 13, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names the Company and R.
Steven Letbetter as defendants.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company is a
provider of electricity and energy services with a focus on the
electric power industry in the United States and Europe.

In April 2002, rumors circulated among investors that energy companies
had been engaging in "Wash Trading" to artificially inflate their
revenue figures.  Wash trading, also known as "Round Trip Trading," is
a misleading practice whereby two energy companies buy and sell
electricity to each other at the same price and simultaneously,
creating the appearance that the companies are doing more business than
is really the case.

Wash trades do not generally generate a profit or a loss, but pump up
trading volume and revenue, misleading market analysts and investors as
to the market share of the companies involved.

On May 13, 2002, the Company admitted that wash trades had made up 10
percent of its revenues over the past three years, and accounted for
one-fifth of its electricity trading in 2001.  On May 16, 2002, the
Company issued a press release announcing a massive reorganization of
its top management including the resignation of its Executive Vice
President and Group President of Wholesale Businesses and its President
of Trading (Wholesale Group).

On Tuesday May 21, 2002, the Company restated its revenues for the
first quarter of 2001 to adjust for the wash trades. The revised
financial statements showed the Company's first quarter 2001 revenues
were $8.64 billion instead of the $9.87 billion originally reported.
The amount of power purchased during the quarter was revised to $2.40
billion, down from $3.63 billion.

The Company also indicated it was to submit restated financial
statements for 1999, 2000 and other quarters of 2001 to correct
revenues, fuel and cost of gas sold and purchased power expenses to
reflect the round trip trades during the three-year period.

News of the Company's wash trades and subsequent restatement
dramatically impacted its share price, causing harm to thousands of
investors.  A week following the news of the Company's wash trading the
price of its stock had fallen 46%, to $7.73.

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


RESONATE INC.: Securities Suit Alleges Underwriters' Impropriety in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Resonate, Inc. faces an amended consolidated securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York charging the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain investment bank underwriters for its initial
public offering (IPO), with federal securities violations.

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices by the underwriters
concerning the allocation of the Company's IPO shares, in violation of
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's stock during the period from August
2, 2000 to December 6, 2000.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suit is substantially similar to other suits filed
in the Southern District of New York regarding the IPOs of more than
300 other companies.  All of these have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims and intends to vigorously defend against the suit.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Termination of MDI Acquisition Renders Suit Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games, Inc. amicably terminated negotiations for its
takeover of MDI Entertainment, Inc., making the securities class action
pending against the two companies in the Delaware Chancery Court
subject for dismissal.

Shareholders of MDI Entertainment filed the suit, after the Company
announced its intent to acquire MDI in a stock-for-stock transaction
valued at approximately $26 million.

The suit alleges that the consideration offered to MDI's stockholders
is unfair and inadequate because the plaintiffs believe that the
intrinsic value of MDI's common stock is materially in excess of the
amount offered giving consideration to its growth and anticipated
operating results, net asset value, and future profitability.

The suit further alleges that independent valuations performed by MDI's
board of directors before they approved the proposed transaction valued
MDI in excess of the value of the proposed transaction. The suit
further states that the defendants have approved a proposal that favors
their own interests over those of MDI's public stockholders.

On May 8, 2002, the Company and MDI mutually terminated the
negotiations, following MDI's announcement that it had received a
proposal from a third party to acquire a majority interest in MDI for
$3.30 per share in cash.


SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI), charging the Company and
several top officers with artificially inflating the Company's stock
price by improperly recording revenue.  The suit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on
behalf of all investors who bought Seitel common stock from May 5, 2000
through May 3, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company and the individual defendants
materially misrepresented the Company's financial results for 2000 and
2001 by improperly recognizing revenues.  Most of the improper revenue,
the complaint says, was attributable to the Company's undisclosed
practice of recording revenue for the licensing of its seismic data and
other geophysical information before delivering data to customers.  The
practice ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles and
artificially inflated Company stock price during the class period, the
complaint says.

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

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

By the time the Company further detailed the restatements on May 3,
2002, its stock price had plunged to $5.65 per share, more than 75%
below the class period high of $22.72 per share, the complaint says.

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


SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Specialty Laboratories, Inc.
(NYSE:SP) securities between December 8, 2000 and April 10, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Paul F. Beyer,

     (2) James B. Peter,

     (3) Frank J. Spina,

     (4) Richard E. Belluzzo,

     (5) Deborah A. Estes,

     (6) Douglas S. Harrington,

     (7) William J. Nydam,

     (8) Thomas R. Testman,

     (9) Thomas E. England,

    (10) Bart E. Thielen, and

    (11) John W. Littleton.

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


STILLWATER MINING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
against Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE: SWC) and certain principal
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between April 20, 2001 and April
1, 2002.

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 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
its 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 improperly classified "mineralized material" as
         "probable reserves;"

     (2) defendants' improper manipulation of probable reserves
         overstated the Company's class period net income because
         defendants depreciated its plant and equipment costs according
         of the life of these reserves. If defendants had properly
         accounted for these reserves, depreciation would have occurred
         much faster; and

     (3) the reduction in probable reserves will likely result in an
         impairment charge, or a restatement of at least fiscal year
         2001 results.

Furthermore, defendants failed to disclose that the SEC had advised the
Company by mid-December 2001/early January 2002 that its methodology
for the calculation of probable ore reserves was improper and would
have to be changed.

On April 2, 2002, when defendants belatedly disclosed that the
Company's accounting practices had been condemned by the SEC, the stock
dropped by 24% in one day on extraordinarily high volumes of 4,743,600
shares traded, vastly greater than the Company's average trading volume
of approximately 400,000 shares per day. The full extent of the
Company's losses is still unknown to the market, since the revision to
reserves could adversely impact 2001 net income, and result in a
downward financial restatement of prior quarters.

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


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Second Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmeta Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss the second amended
securities class action against the Company, its directors, and certain
of its officers.

The second amended suit was filed in March 2002, on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from
November 7, 2000 to July 19, 2001.  The suit alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On April 5, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  
The Company believes that the allegations in the suit are without merit
and intends to defend the consolidated action vigorously.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Derivative Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative suit pending against Transmeta
Corporation's directors and officers filed an amended consolidated suit
in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County in California on April
29,2002.

Like its antecedents, the consolidated suit alleges that certain
individual defendants sold shares of the Company's common stock,
purportedly in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company.  The
suit further alleges that the selling defendants were aided and abetted
by the other individual defendants.  The complaint also alleges:

     (1) gross mismanagement,

     (2) waste of corporate assets, and

     (3) abuse of control

The Company and the individual defendants have moved to stay discovery
and intend to file demurrers in June 2002.  The Company believes that
the allegations in the consolidated complaint and it antecedents are
without merit and intend to challenge the complaint and defend the
consolidated action vigorously.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Transmeta
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York filed an amended consolidated class action in
April 2002.

The consolidated suit arose from several class actions filed in June
2001 against the Company, certain of its directors and officers,
and certain of the underwriters for its initial public offering.  In
October 2001, the court dismissed all claims against the defendants
without prejudice to plaintiff's right to pursue such claims.  In
January 2002, the court ordered the suits consolidated.

The consolidated suit alleges that the prospectus from the Company's
November 7, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.  The suit alleges
claims against the Company and several of its officers and directors
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
under Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commissions that the suit is similar to other actions filed regarding
the initial public offerings of more than 300 other companies.  All of
these cases, including the one against the Company, have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes in the Southern District of New York.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suit and its
antecedents are without merit and intends to defend the action
vigorously.  The Company and the individual defendants have not yet
responded to the consolidated amended complaint, because the time
for defendants to move as to that type of complaint is presently
adjourned, pending further instruction from the Honorable Shira A.
Scheindlin, US District Court Judge, Southern District of New York.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Files Demurrer To Derivative Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnstone Systems, Inc. filed a demurrer to second amended shareholder
derivative suit pending against the Company's officers and directors in
the state court in California, County of Santa Clara.

The original derivative suit alleges that the individual defendants
caused the Company harm by either making or permitting the Company to
make false and misleading statements between June 5, 2000 and January
2, 2001 and by permitting certain officers to profit from stock sales
during that period.  The complaint asserts claims against the
individual defendants for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) waste of corporate assets,

     (3) abuse of control and

     (4) gross mismanagement of the Company

The Company demurred to the suit in July 2001 and in September 2001, a
court order was issued sustaining the demurrer and granting plaintiff
limited discovery.  On December 19, 2001, subsequent to the completion
of the court-ordered discovery, plaintiff filed a first amended
derivative complaint alleging the same causes of action asserted in the
initial complaint.

The Company again filed a demurrer to the first amended derivative
complaint on January 10, 2002.  On February 22, 2002, Judge Jack Komar
issued an order sustaining the demurrer and granting plaintiff leave to
amend its complaint.  The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on
March 19, 2002.

A hearing on the Company's demurrer is set for May 28, 2002.  The
Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Turnstone
Systems, Inc. filed an amended suit on April 22,2002.

The suit was initially filed in November 2001, alleging claims against
the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of stock.  
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the initial public offering
between January 31 and December 6, 2000.

The complaint alleges generally that the prospectus under which such
securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with
respect to discounts and commissions received by the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300
cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently pending in
the Southern District of New York.  On April 18, 2002, Michael
Szymanowski was appointed lead plaintiff in the action.

The Company denies the suit's allegations, and intends to mount a
vigorous defense against it.

                              *********

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  * * *