CAR_Public/020531.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                 Friday, May 31, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 107

                            Headlines

CALLAWAY GOLF: Discovery Proceeds In Consumer Suit In TN State Court
COLUMBIA NATURAL: Dismissal Motion Partially Granted in Royalties Suit
COLUMBIA NATURAL: Asks KS Court To Dismiss Suit Over Land Royalties
LOCKFORMER COMPANY: More Suits Expected Over TCE Contamination in IL
MENORAH GARDENS: FL Court To Hear Class Certification Arguments in Suit

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: States Spurn Private Lawyers' Help in Suit
SHELL CANADA: Apologizes For Gas Additive Causing Fuel Pump Problems
UST INC.: Faces Suits For Antitrust Violations Over Tobacco Products
VERISIGN INC.: Faces Another Suit Over Fraudulent Advertising in CA

*Indian Trust Fund In Need of Serious Reforms, No Solutions In Sight

                         Securities Fraud

ALCATEL SA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ANTIGENICS INC.: Plaintiffs Amend Suit To Add New Claims in S.D. NY
CENDANT CORPORATION: Makes Final Payment of Landmark Suit Settlement
CHINA: Court Allows Shareholders To File Suits Under Certain Conditions
DELTEK SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in MN Federal Court

DYNEGY INC.: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Intend To Appeal CA Suit Dismissal
EDISON SCHOOLS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EXCITE@HOME: Prepares To Auction Off Final Remains of Internet Service
LANTRONIX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in CA

MIRANT CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
NEOFORMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suits
OAK TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Appeal
PARTSBASE INC.: Agrees To Settle For $1.5M Securities Suit in S.D. FL

PARTSBASE INC.: Sued Over CEO's Proposal To Acquire Stock in FL Court
PERRINI CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
REHABCARE GROUP: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO
SALOMON SMITH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

VERISIGN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA

                            *********

CALLAWAY GOLF: Discovery Proceeds In Consumer Suit In TN State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is commencing in the consumer class action against Callaway Golf
Company and Callaway Golf Sales Company in the Circuit Court of
Sevier County, Tennessee.

The suit was filed on behalf of consumers in Tennessee and Kansas
who purchased selected Callaway Golf products on or after March 30, 2000.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company adopted a New Product
Introduction Policy governing the introduction of certain of the Company's
new products in violation of Tennessee and Kansas antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  The suit seeks damages, restitution and punitive damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: Dismissal Motion Partially Granted in Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A New York state court granted in part Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the class action filed by Vivian K. Kershaw against them,
over royalties on oil and gas leases.

The suit alleges that Ms. Kershaw owns an interest in an oil and gas lease
in New York and that the defendants have underpaid royalties on those leases
by, among other things, failing to base royalties on the price at which
natural gas is sold to the end user and by improperly
deducting post-production costs.  The suit seeks class action status on
behalf of all royalty owners in oil and gas leases operated by the Company.

The Company removed the case to New York Federal Court in March 2000, but
the Court remanded it to the State Court.  The Company asked the Court to
dismiss the suit, but the Court partially granted and partially denied the
motion in September 2001.

The Company intends to defend against the suit vigorously.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: Asks KS Court To Dismiss Suit Over Land Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., along with other natural gas measurers
asked Stevens County State Court in Kansas to dismiss the amended class
action pending since September 1999, against over 200 natural gas measurers,
mostly natural gas pipelines, including the Company and fourteen affiliated
entities.

The suit alleges that the defendants submitted false royalty reports to the
government (or caused others to do so) by mismeasuring the volume and
heating content of natural gas produced on federal land, Indian lands and
all oil and gas leases.  The suit asserts:

     (1) breach of contract claim,

     (2) negligent or intentional misrepresentation,

     (3) civil conspiracy,

     (4) common carrier liability,

     (5) conversion,

     (6) violation of a variety of Kansas statutes and

     (7) other common law causes of action.

The suit was filed on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated gas
producers, royalty owners, overriding royalty owners, working interest
owners and certain state taxing authorities.

The defendants had previously removed the case to Federal Court, but in
January 2001, the Federal Court remanded the case to State Court.  In June
2001, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed nine of the thirteen Columbia
entities. Discovery relating to personal jurisdiction has begun.

The four remaining Company entities along with other defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is currently pending.


LOCKFORMER COMPANY: More Suits Expected Over TCE Contamination in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of Lockformer Company agreed a week ago to settle a federal class
action brought by residents who said their wells were contaminated by a
chemical from its metal fabricating plant in Lisle, Illinois, the Chicago
Tribune reports.  However, still to be decided are two lawsuits seeking
compensation for damages brought by homeowners who live north and south of
those who were involved in last week's US$10 million settlement.

Suits also have been filed blaming the Company for the death of a Lisle
resident from kidney cancer and for still another resident's kidney disease.
Yet another lawsuit, brought by Illinois Attorney General Jim
Ryan, DuPage County State Attorney's Office and Lisle, charges various
environmental infractions.

The defendants in these various lawsuits are the Company, its parent
division Met-Coil and their parent company Mestek Inc.  Except for Attorney
General Ryans', the suits also include the owner of the Company's former
chemical supplier, Honeywell International Inc.

Last week's preliminary settlement was reached at a trial in the class
action brought by 186 homeowners living south of the Ogden Avenue plant.
They sued for damages after trichloroethylene (TCE) was found in wells
supplying their homes with drinking water.  The settlement will likely
become final in June.

Shawn M. Collins, the Naperville attorney who represented those homeowners,
said he hopes a settlement can be negotiated in the second
federal class action, which he filed last August on behalf of about
1,000 other residents.  Those homeowners live in an area stretching
farther south, where the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency also
found contaminated wells.


MENORAH GARDENS: FL Court To Hear Class Certification Arguments in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers suing on behalf of hundreds of families with loved ones buried
in the Menorah Gardens cemeteries in Broward and Palm Beach counties,
will have their day in court in a hearing to determine whether the
lawsuit against owner Service Corporation International will be
certified as a class action, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.

The lawyers are expected to lay out the key elements of their case, and
the stakes will be raised if class-action status is granted, because it
broadens the number of people who will be party to a verdict or settlement.

The lawsuit, filed in December, alleges that bodies were buried in the
wrong places, that some were unearthed to make room for new burials and
that others were stacked on top of each other instead of being buried
side-by-side.  This lawsuit led to a series of investigations and still
other lawsuits.

Among those expected to testify at the hearing in Broward Circuit Court are
state investigators, family members of those buried in the cemeteries and an
expert in Jewish burial law.


PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: States Spurn Private Lawyers' Help in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1990s, a group of private lawyers teamed with state attorneys general
to force the tobacco industry to agree to a $206 billion settlement to
compensate states for treating ill smokers.  In return,
the lawyers received hundreds of millions of dollars in contingency
fees, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Now, some of these same lawyers are hoping to join the states again in a
growing spate of litigation aimed at forcing the pharmaceutical industry to
lower the cost of drugs.  However, the lawyers are finding few clients, so
far.

"I am philosophically opposed to providing contingency-fee payments to
private attorneys to resolve matters of public-interest law," says Delaware
Attorney General Jane Brady.  Ms. Brady says she declined a
request from Nevada officials to join two lawsuits brought by that
state  recently, in part because Nevada had hired an outside law firm on a
contingency basis.  The suits accused more than a dozen pharmaceutical
companies of manipulating prices.  Nevada is being represented by the
Seattle firm of Hagens Berman, which represented 13 states in the 1998
tobacco settlement.  The pharmaceutical companies in the Nevada cases have
said that their actions are legal.

AARP is expected to announce that it is joining ongoing drug pricing
lawsuits brought by a Boston-based consumer group, rather than retain
Richard Scruggs, an attorney who represented nearly 30 states in the
tobacco litigation.  Earlier this year, Mr. Scruggs asked AARP, an
advocacy group formerly known as the American Association of Retired
Persons, to join him in similar suits against the pharmaceutical
industry.

Some state prosecutors believe the private lawyers are motivated by the
prospect of large monetary settlements, rather than what the states are
seeking from the pharmaceutical industry:  adoption of a transparent
method of pricing prescription drugs.  Moreover, there is lingering ill
will between some states and lawyers over the size of legal fees in the
tobacco suits.

"We are not in the litigation simply for money," said Ohio Attorney
General Betty Montgomery.  She is chairing a newly created task force
of  nearly 40 state prosecutors exploring a series of lawsuits against
the pharmaceutical industry, an effort reminiscent of the coordinated
campaign that led to the tobacco-industry settlement.

Task force members have discussed the pros and cons of hiring outside
contingency-fee attorneys, with most state prosecutors opposed to the
idea,  Ms. Brady and other state officials say.  Instead, Ms. Montgomery
says the task force members may create, in effect, a multistate in-house
legal team.

AARP will join lawsuits brought by Prescription Access Litigation Project.
Interestingly, the Project has hired several class-action law
firms to bring the cases, including one that was involved in the tobacco
litigation:  San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

Stephen Rosenfeld, the consumer group's senior legal adviser, says he plans
to steer clear of the missteps of the tobacco litigation, which he calls a
"case study in failure."  Those cases were too much about money and did not
bring about changes in the way tobacco companies sell
cigarettes, Mr. Rosenfeld says.


SHELL CANADA: Apologizes For Gas Additive Causing Fuel Pump Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Canada has paid for some repairs and apologized to customers for a
gasoline additive that damaged fuel pumps and gauges, the Company said
recently, according to Associated Press Newswires.

A class action, filed by Dorothy Young of Port Alberni, British Columbia,
accuses the Company of failing to notify consumers about the problem, which
has affected thousands of vehicles in the past year.  The additive clogged
fuel pumps, caused fuel lights to blink empty when
the tank was full, and sent fuel gauges swinging back and forth.

The suit alleges that the Company sold the gasoline that damaged her vehicle
and tried to keep the problem quiet.  By failing to recall or replace the
suspect fuel, the lawsuit says, the Company participated in an "intentional
misrepresentation and/or concealment" that intended to avoid paying
compensation.

The additive was removed from sale in March, Company spokesman Jeffrey
Mann said, and the Company issued a letter on March 22, notifying 508
retailers of a phone line to handle claims of problems from the additive.
Since then, the Company has settled more than 2,000 claims, Mr. Mann said.

The Company stated in a press release that it stands behind its products,
"All of our fuels meet or exceed Canadian standards as well as our own
stringent internal specifications."


UST INC.: Faces Suits For Antitrust Violations Over Tobacco Products
--------------------------------------------------------------------
UST Inc. faces several class actions alleging violations of antitrust laws
in five states, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's smokeless tobacco
products.  Four of the suits were filed in:

     (1) Tennessee State Court, on behalf of indirect purchasers of the
         Company's smokeless tobacco products from April 1996 through
         March 28,2000;

     (2) New Mexico State Court, on behalf of indirect purchasers of
         the Company's smokeless tobacco products from April 1996
         through March 28,2000;

     (3) West Virginia State Court, on behalf of indirect purchasers of
         the Company's smokeless tobacco products from April 1996 to
         December 31, 2000; and

     (4) Kansas State Court, on behalf of indirect purchasers of the
         Company's smokeless tobacco products from January 1, 1990
         through January 25, 2002

The suits allege that the Company has violated the antitrust laws (sole
claim in Kansas), unfair or deceptive trade practices statutes and the
common law of those states.

The Company also faces a similar class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia by wholesalers/ distributors of
the Company's smokeless tobacco products.

The suit alleges that the Company engaged in conduct that violates the
federal antitrust laws, including Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and
Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and that the Company engaged in this conduct
unilaterally and in concert with "its co-conspirators."

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this regard, and
that the ultimate outcome of these suits will not have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position.


VERISIGN INC.: Faces Another Suit Over Fraudulent Advertising in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. faces another class action, alleging the Mountain View,
California-based Internet domain name registrar harmed consumers with
unsavory, aggressive advertising ploys that pushed its services.  The suit,
filed last week in Los Angeles Supreme Court, charges that the Company sent
direct mail to the customers of competing registrars that falsely implied
that their domain names were about to expire, and that they must pay $29 to
have their domain name transferred to the Company.

"On or about April 25, 2002, Verisign began sending a 'Domain Name
Expiration Notice' to thousands of consumers of its competitors," the
lawsuit maintained.  "The 'Domain Name Expiration Notice' carried an
artificial 'deadline' for reply of May 15, 2002, and thereby has implied
that certain domain names of targeted potential costumers are about to
expire. In fact, there is no necessary relation between the reply deadline
noted in the 'Domain Name Expiration Notice' and the actual expiration date
of the domain name."

The suit charges that, because of the expense of unnecessarily changing
domain name registrars, the campaign will cause "irreparable damage unless
VeriSign is enjoined from continuing their unconscionable and deceptive
advertising campaign of sending out these 'renewal' notices that seek to
trick domain-name owners into unwittingly transferring their accounts to
VeriSign."


*Indian Trust Fund In Need of Serious Reforms, No Solutions In Sight
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For more than a century, ranchers, miners and loggers have contracted
with the government to harvest timber, graze cattle and extract oil, gas and
minerals from Indian land.  The money paid to the government is
supposed to be forwarded to each landowner, each one an Indian.

However, from the beginning, the government paid little attention to which
landowner was owed what, Newsday recently reported.  As Indians died and
land was divided among heirs, accounting problems grew exponentially.  This
is now one of the most intractable accounting messes in US history.

Congress has tried to fix the system and failed.  Accounting firm Arthur
Andersen was paid $20 million in the early 1990s to reconcile tribal
accounts and failed.  The Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, tried to fix the system.  It, too, has failed and ended up
in court with individual account holders.  Evidence made it clear that
relevant documents were shredded and e-mails deleted.  Two Clinton cabinet
members have been found in contempt of court, and now Interior Secretary
Gale Norton and 40 deputies face contempt charges in a class action brought
by the Indian account holders.

That case, one of the largest class actions in history in terms of
plaintiffs, was filed six years ago to secure a reckoning of 300,000
accounts belonging to individual American Indians.  In separate litigations,
various tribes are seeking similar treatment for about 1,400 tribal
accounts.  The government, the American Indians contend, still cannot
provide an accurate balance sheet for a single one.

Plaintiffs in the class action, led by Elouise Cobell, treasurer of the
Blackfeet Indians in Montana, say they are owed at least $10 billion.  US
District Judge Royce Lamberth already has found the government breached its
fiduciary duty to the Indians and he is considering how the system might be
repaired and will later determine damages.

However, there is no consensus on how to accomplish either an accounting
dating back more than a century or a long-term fix for the future, or even a
settlement.

Secretary Norton wants to create an agency to overhaul the trust fund.
Ms. Cobell wants the Judge to appoint an independent receiver, which
would focus solely on the individual accounts.  A task force of 36
tribal leaders is considering calling for a body akin to a Resolution
Trust Corp., which restored the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

How did the fund get to this point of chaos?  The problem dates to the early
19th century, when the government began putting tribal land in trust.  With
the 1887 Dawes Act, the government began breaking up Western tribal land
into allotments to individual Indians.  The Dawes Act was actually a means
of obtaining land for white settlers.  Typically, the government would
declare land "surplus" and pay the Indians a pittance during the break-up
process.

Within 50 years, American Indians lost more than 135,000 square miles.  The
remaining 57 million acres, 47 million of which is tribal land, is
held in trust by the government.

Companies or individuals who want to extract the oil or minerals from
the property or graze cattle on it, sign leases with the local Bureau of
Indian Affairs Superintendent and pay the Office of Trust Fund
Management, which manages the accounts.  Over the years, the government gave
the accounts low priority, spreading records across dozens of poorly kept
warehouses, where fires, floods and insects destroyed them.  Compounding the
problem is the fact that most Indians die without wills, leaving a judge to
divide the land among the heirs.

Today, there is a backlog of more than 20,000 probate cases.  Property
inspections are not conducted on time, or are not carried out at all.  There
is no way to ensure that account holders are receiving the highest value for
their leases and there is no way to know when money is owed an account
holder.

So it was, when, in 1996, Ms. Cobell decided to sue to force the government
to account for all royalties due since 1887 to individual
Indians and their heirs.  Ms. Cobell asserts that if all royalties due for
individual accounts since 1877 were totaled, they would amount to more than
$100 billion.

                          Securities Fraud

ALCATEL SA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Alcatel SA relating to the Company's Class
O common shares (Nasdaq:ALAO) in or traceable to the initial public offering
of the ADSs conducted by the Company on or about October 20, 2000, and all
persons other than defendants who purchased the Company's Class A common
shares (NYSE:ALA) and Class O common shares in the form of ADSs between
October 20, 2000 and May 29, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing a false and misleading prospectus on October 20, 2000, and by
making material misrepresentations to the market between October 20, 2000
and May 29, 2001.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that on October 20,
2000, the Company issued a prospectus for the sale of Class O stock in the
form of American Depositary Shares (ADSs) that purportedly would track the
performance of its Optronics Division.

The prospectus was materially false and misleading, as alleged in the
complaint, because it failed to disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

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


ANTIGENICS INC.: Plaintiffs Amend Suit To Add New Claims in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Antigenics, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York filed an
amended suit in April 19,2002, naming the Company, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Garo Armen, and two investment banking firms that served
as underwriters in its initial public
Offering.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between
February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  The suit against alleges that the
brokerage arms of the investment banking firms charged secret excessive
commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of
Company stock in the offering.  The suit also alleges that shares of Company
stock were allocated to certain of the
investment banking firms' customers based upon an agreement by such
customers to purchase additional shares of stock in the secondary market.

The complaint alleges that the Company is liable under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Mr. Armen is
liable under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act because the Company's
registration statement did not disclose these alleged practices.

In addition to the claims in the earlier complaint, the amended suit alleges
that the Company and Mr. Armen violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading
statements and/or omissions in order to inflate the Company's stock price
and conceal the investment banking firms' alleged secret arrangements.  The
amended complaint further alleges that Mr. Armen, as a "control person" of
the Company, violated Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
stated that the suit was virtually identical to hundreds of class actions
filed against 300 other issuers, their underwriters, and their directors and
officers.  These cases have been coordinated under Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.  The Company intends to defend against
these claims vigorously.


CENDANT CORPORATION: Makes Final Payment of Landmark Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cendant Corporation announced its final payment on a record US$3.2 billion
securities fraud settlement, which stemmed from a class action against the
real estate and travel company, Associated Press Newswires
reported today.  A spokesman for Cendant said the payment was about $1.2
billion.

Last year, a federal appellate court endorsed a record $3.2 billion
settlement that the New York-based Company and its accounting firm, Ernst &
Young LLP, made with the stockholders relating to accounting
irregularities at the former units of CUC International.

The alleged accounting fraud, which the Company disclosed nearly four years
ago, led to a one-day, $14 billion stock plunge and class actions from
shareholders.  A judge approved the settlement in March 2000, after at least
64 securities fraud lawsuits were consolidated.

CUC, which sold memberships in discount buying clubs, merged with HFS
Inc., franchiser of brand names such as Ramada, Avis and Century 21, in
December 1997, to form the Company, which is based in New York.

In March, the federal prosecutor in Connecticut said that Walter Forbes
and E. Kirk Shelton, both former executives at CUC and accused of
inflating the value of the Company, will be tried in United States District
Court in New Haven, Connecticut.


CHINA: Court Allows Shareholders To File Suits Under Certain Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
China's judicial system, as a general rule, shuns the class action as a
vehicle for shareholders to bring a lawsuit.  Judges of the Chinese Supreme
People's Court say that grouping all the angry shareholders under a class
action is considered politically dangerous, reports ABIX (the Australasian
Business Intelligence).

However, a small breakthrough came recently, when the Supreme Court,
while still barring class actions generally, decided to let shareholders sue
in a class action, so long as the listed companies have been sanctioned by
the Chinese securities regulator, and only for cases of releasing fraudulent
statistics.  Still, just one case has come up for trial, even though
thousands of lawsuits have been filed.

This change of heart, as it were, came about when China's Communist Party
made plans to allow the public to buy more than the regulated 30
percent of individual company shares.  This recent leniency is part of a
plan to fund a crucial social security program.  A reason for the
establishment of the stock markets in China is to enable the Government
to raise money for the state-owned corporations.


DELTEK SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in MN Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Deltek Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: DLTK) reached an agreement to settle the class
action brought by Carl Brown, a Company shareholder, against the Company and
the six members of its Board of Directors, regarding the Company's
acceptance of an offer to take Deltek private.

The suit was initiated in early May 2002, in the District Court for the
Second Judicial District in Ramsey County, Minnesota, alleging that in
connection with proposed going private transaction, the directors breached
their fiduciary duty and duty of disclosure to Company shareholders.

Shortly after filing the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary injunction asking that the special meeting of Company
shareholders and the going private transaction be enjoined.  On May 13,
2002, the defendants removed the action to the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, to transfer venue to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia. The defendants also requested an
expedited hearing on that motion. On May 14, 2002, the plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the case to the Minnesota state court. The defendants filed
their opposition to that motion on May 17, 2002.

During the course of the litigation proceedings summarized above, counsel
for plaintiff and the defendants began to engage in discussions concerning
possible settlement of the litigation. Those discussions culminated when
counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants executed late on May 28, 2002 a
memorandum of understanding setting forth the agreement in principle that
had been reached between the parties.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the parties will, as
soon as possible, enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be
presented to the state court for Minnesota and which will provide, among
other things:

     (1) for certification of a class of Company shareholders;

     (2) for entry of a judgment dismissing the litigation with
         prejudice:

     (3) a release and settlement of all claims against the defendants;

     (4) that defendants expressly deny that they committed or
         threatened to commit any violations of law or breaches of
         duty; and

     (5) that the defendants are entering into the settlement in order
         to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and

         to facilitate consummation of the going private transaction,
         which is in the best interests of plaintiff and the class.

The final settlement of the litigation is subject to, among other things,
execution of a formal stipulation of settlement, notice to members of the
class and court approval of the settlement. Upon final approval of the
settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuit, defendants have agreed, subject
to certain conditions, to pay certain of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
costs.


DYNEGY INC.: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred G. Yates, Jr. initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) between April 17,
2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that during the class period, the defendants:

     (1) made false and misleading public disclosures regarding its
         cash flows from operations, and

     (2) failed to disclose information material to investors,
         including the details of its "Project Alpha," a transaction
         involving two special purpose entities and a partnership the
         Company created for the purposes of increasing cash flow from
         operations and decreasing tax costs.

As a result of defendants' misleading statements and omissions during the
class period, the price of the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices.

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Mail: 519 Allegheny
Building, 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA by Phone: 800-391-5164 by Fax:
412-471-1033 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Intend To Appeal CA Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Edison
International and Southern California Edison (SCE) intend to appeal the
United States District Court in Los Angeles, California's decision to
dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim.

The suit was commenced in October 2000, asserting securities fraud claims
arising from alleged improper accounting for the energy-cost
undercollections, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between July 21, 2000, and April 17,
2001.

In September 2001, SCE and the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, which the court granted, with prejudice in March 2002.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.


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

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

According to the complaint, the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that the Company was overstating revenues. In February 2002, it was revealed
that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue and a May 14, 2002 SEC
cease and desist order forced the Company to admit to these actions.

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


EXCITE@HOME: Prepares To Auction Off Final Remains of Internet Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------Bankru
pt Excite@Home Corporation will auction off the last pieces of its defunct
high-speed Internet access service, putting the finishing touches on a fire
sale that has extracted about $60 million from a business valued at $28
billion three years ago, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The Company's investors plan to pursue lawsuits blaming the Company's demise
on the alleged misdeeds of its former cable partners, chiefly
AT&T, Comcast and Cox Communications.  The damages could run as high as
$9 billion, according to a group of about 200 Company shareholders fighting
to become the lead representatives in a class action filed in a New York
federal court.

The shareholders' only real hope for recovering any of their losses seems to
hinge on the class action contending that AT&T, Comcast and Cox abused their
positions on the Company's Board to dupe the investors. AT&T, which once
owned 73 percent of the Company's voting stock, has repeatedly denied this
allegation in court documents filed in the bankruptcy case.

Besides saddling creditors and investors with billions in losses, the
Company's downfall wiped out the jobs of its 3,000 employees and infuriated
many of its more than four million subscribers.

The company has generated just under $60 million from asset sales
negotiated since September of last year, with the largest chunks coming
from the sale of its online portal, Excite.com, and its holding in
Japan.  The liquidation of assets, coupled with the additional fees that it
charged the cable partners and the cash it had in its bank account before
the bankruptcy, is expected to give the Company somewhere between $250
million and $320 million to distribute to its creditors.  The Company's
bondholders may receive as much as $177.2 million of the $750 million owed
them, while the unsecured creditors may get as much as $142.8 million of the
estimated $500 million owed them, leaving, the shareholders to pursue
recovery from the class action.


LANTRONIX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of Lantronix Inc. (NASDAQ:LTRX) publicly traded
securities during the period between April 25, 2001 and May 15, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company designs,
develops, and markets network device servers. The complaint alleges that
during the class period, defendants caused the Company's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements.  As a result of this inflation, the Company was able
to complete a secondary offering of eight million shares, raising proceeds
of $64 million on July 17, 2001.

The defendants' alleged wrongful course of business include:

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

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

     (3) allowed certain of the individual defendants to sell more than
         $13 million worth of the shares held/controlled by them and
         allowed the Company to sell $50 million worth of its own
         stock; and

     (4) permitted the Company to grow and benefit economically from
         the wrongful course of conduct.

The Company and its top officers inflated the price of the Company's stock
in order to pursue an accelerated securities sale program. Defendants knew
that concealing the Company's joint venture and the true impact it would
have on the Company provided the only way that they could foster the
perception in the business community that the Company was a "growth
company," i.e., the only way the Company could post the revenue and earnings
per share growth claimed by defendants.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail:
wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


MIRANT CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Mirant Corporation (NYSE: MIR)
between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against:

     (1) S. Marce Fuller (Chief Executive Officer),

     (2) Raymond Hill (Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Richard Pershing (Executive Vice President and CEO of Mirant
         North America) and

     (4) James A. Ward (Principle Accounting 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 January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company reaped illegal profits in California
by artificially manipulating energy prices through a variety of improper
tactics.  The Company's fraudulent practices have resulted in investigations
by both the Attorney General of the State of California, and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as a number of lawsuits filed by
California, and consumers.

As now revealed, during the class period, while the Company announced
quarter-after-quarter of outstanding growth, and assured investors that
problems in the California market had been properly accounted for, the
Company, in fact, failed to:

     (i) provide for the return of illegally obtained revenue, through
         a charge to earnings;

    (ii) provide for professional fees associated with the
         investigations arising from the fraud through a charge to
         earnings; and

   (iii) disclose the fact that the illegally obtained revenue was
         subject to forfeiture and that investigations surrounding the
         illegally obtained revenue would result in the expenditure of
         material amounts for legal and professional fees.

As a result, defendants' class period financial statements were materially
overstated, and failed to comply with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP).

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Mail:
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone:
800-320-5081 by E-mail: Mirantcase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.milberg.com


NEOFORMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities suits against Neoforma, Inc. filed an amended
and consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 24,2000 to December 6,
2000 against the Company and:

     (1) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

     (2) Bear Stearns,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (4) Robert J. Zollars, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and

     (5) Frederick Ruegsegger, former Chief Financial Officer,

The amended suit alleges that the underwriters solicited and received
"undisclosed compensation" from investors in exchange for allocations of
stock in the Company's IPO, and that some investors in the IPO allegedly
agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the aftermarket to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock.

The Company and its officers are named in the suits pursuant to Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for allegedly failing to
disclose in its IPO registration statement and prospectus that the
underwriters had entered into the arrangements describe above.

The Company states that the suit is similar to suits filed against
approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters, all of which are
included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.  The Company is defending against this action vigorously.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States
District Court for the Central District of California's dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action against Northrop Grumman Corporation.

The suit arose from five securities class actions, namely:

     (1) Fanni v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al.,

     (2) Schnee v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al.,

     (3) Florida State Board of Admin. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et
         al.,

     (4) Burroughs v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al., and

     (5) Miller, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al.,

The Federal Court consolidated the Fanni, Schnee and Florida State Board of
Admin. suits into one action, and the Burroughs and Miller suits into
another action.  The Court then dismissed the Fanni consolidated actions
with prejudice in April 2000, and dismissed the
Burroughs consolidated actions with prejudice in October 2000.


OAK TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Sixth District Court of Appeals has not issued a decision
on the appeal filed by plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class
action against Oak Technology, Inc. over a California state court's decision
granting summary judgment in favor of the Company.

The suit was filed against the Company and various of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
the Company's common stock for the period July 27, 1995 through May 22,
1996.  The suit, filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in Santa
Clara, California, alleged violations of California securities laws and
statutory deceit provisions as well as
breaches of fiduciary duty and abuse of control.

After several rounds of demurrers, the Court dismissed all claims except the
California Corporations Code Sections 25400/25500 cause of action against
the Company, four officers and the Company's investment bankers and
securities analysts.  In July 1998, the Court provisionally certified a
national class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock during the
class period.

The Court later granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment in favor of the Company.  The plaintiffs then appealed the
Court's decision, which is currently under review by the Sixth District
Court of Appeal.

Additionally, various of the Company's current and former officers and
directors are defendants in three consolidated derivative actions pending in
Santa Clara County Superior Court in Santa Clara, California.  The suit
assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and a claim under California
securities law based upon the officers' and directors' trading in securities
of the Company.  The suit has been stayed pending resolution of the
above-described class action.

Based on its current information, the Company believes the suits to be
without merit and will defend its position vigorously.   Although it is
reasonably possible the Company may incur a loss upon conclusion of these
claims, an estimate of any such loss cannot be made.


PARTSBASE INC.: Agrees To Settle For $1.5M Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Partbase, Inc. reached a US$1.5 million settlement of the consolidated
securities class action pending against it in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded common stock during the period
from the Initial Public Offering on March 22, 2000 through April 25, 2000.

The suit alleges that the IPO prospectus filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and distributed to investors was false
and misleading.  The prospectus allegedly failed to disclose, among other
things, the fact that the Company had approximately 3,000 paying members.

The complaint also asserts that the Company misled investors by representing
in the prospectus that it had more than 13,000 paying members.  The
complaint further alleges that this misrepresentation, along with others
specified in the complaint, allowed the Company to inflate the price of the
stock in the IPO well beyond its true value

On May 8, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle for the
settlement of the suit.  The memorandum of understanding provides for, among
other things, a settlement amount of $1.5 million in cash, plus interest,
payable to the class under an insurance policy and for the plaintiffs'
dismissal of the suit with prejudice as well as a broad form of release in
favor of the Company and the other defendants in the suit.  This will have
the effect of barring all claims by the plaintiffs and the members of the
class other than those who opt out, arising out of the purchase and sale of
the Company's common stock in its initial public offering.

The final settlement is subject to the preparation and execution of
definitive settlement documents and court approval.  The Company has been
vigorously defending the action, and has admitted no wrongdoing as part of
the settlement.


PARTSBASE INC.: Sued Over CEO's Proposal To Acquire Stock in FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Patsbase, Inc. faces a securities class action relating to a proposal from
its chairman, CEO and majority stockholder Robert Hammond and a limited
partnership controlled by Mr. Hammond to acquire the remaining shares of the
Company's common stock, approximately 5,000,000 shares or approximately 36 %
of the shares currently outstanding, that Mr. Hammond does not own or
control at a price of $1.02 per share.

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida against the Company and certain of its current officers and
directors.  The suit alleges the directors have breached their fiduciary
duty to the plaintiffs and the purported class and seeks to enjoin the
Company from entering into the proposed transaction.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.  Nevertheless, an
unfavorable resolution of this or substantially similar lawsuits could have
a material adverse effect on the Company in one or more future periods.


PERRINI CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Perrini Corporation
appealed a New York court's decision dismissing the suit in the United
States Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit was originally filed in May 2001 against the Company and several of
its current and former directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, on behalf of holders of the Company's $21.25
Convertible Exchangeable Preferred Stock.  The suit asserts claims for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) fraud and

     (4) negligent misrepresentation

The suit principally alleges that the defendants improperly authorized the
exchange of Series B Preferred Stock for Common Stock without first paying
all accrued dividends on the $21.25 preferred stock.  More specifically, the
suit alleges that the Company and its Defendant Directors violated the terms
of the $21.25 Preferred Stock when, in March 2000, the Company authorized
the exchange of Series B Preferred Stock for Common Stock.  The suit further
alleges that the defendants issued a false and misleading prospectus in 1987
relating to the issuance of the $21.25 Preferred Stock.

In May 2001, the suit was transferred from the Supreme Court of New York to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint whereby the plaintiffs limited
their suit to an action for breach of contract against the Company and an
action for breach of fiduciary duty against the defendant directors.

The Company moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims.  On March 2002,
the Federal Court dismissed all claims against the Company and the defendant
directors.  Plaintiffs then appealed this decision.


REHABCARE GROUP: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of RehabCare Group, Inc.
(NYSE:RHB) between February 7, 2001 and January 21,2002 inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against
the Company and:

     (1) H. Edwin Trusheim (Chairman of the Board) and

     (2) Alan C. Henderson (CEO, President and Director)

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market
between February 7, 2001 and January 21, 2002.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, defendants issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
supplemental staffing division.  The suit alleges these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
supplemental staffing division was experiencing serious operational problems
with information systems critical for matching supply with demand, poor
employee training and retention, and that its revenues and earnings were
declining as a result.

On January 21, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that
earnings for its fourth quarter 2001 would be less than half than they had
reiterated in late October and that the Company would take a charge of $8.5
to $9.5 million, $3 million of which was for a reorganization of the
staffing division.  In reaction to the Company's disclosure, as alleged in
the complaint, the price of its common stock plummeted by 25% over one
trading day on heavy volume, falling from $25.21 per share to $18.70 per
share.

Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above, as alleged in
the complaint, the Company completed a secondary offering of common stock,
raising $50 million for the Company and more than $8 million for Company
insiders.  In addition, Company insiders also sold $4,568,209 worth of
common stock during the class period at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone:
800-320-5081 by E-mail: rehabcarecase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.milberg.com


SALOMON SMITH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of WorldCom, Inc. (NASDAQ:WCOM) between May
15, 1999 and April 21, 2002, inclusive against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
and its star telecommunication research analyst, Jack Grubman, who are
charged with issuing misleading analyst reports about WorldCom.

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

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


SALOMON SMITH: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing, Ltd. (OTCBB:GBLXE.OB) common stock
between May 24, 1999, and Oct. 4, 2001, inclusive, against Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc. and its well known telecommunications analyst Jack Grubman for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

When issuing their Global Crossing 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 Global Crossing analyst
reports, to obtain investment banking business for Salomon.

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


VERISIGN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock or publicly traded options of
VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN) between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who acquired the Company's shares
through its acquisition of Illuminet Holdings, Inc. (formerly Nasdaq: ILUM).

The suit alleges that the Company, a provider of internet security software,
and three of its top officers misled the investing public during the class
period by disseminating materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's revenue and assets.

Specifically, a substantial portion of the Company's revenue was derived
from sales to small companies in which the Company had invested.  Thus, the
revenue recognized from these "barter transactions" was questionable and an
inaccurate indicator of he Company's product demand.

In addition, the individual defendants misrepresented the Company's
condition in order to sell $26 million worth of their own stock and to
acquire companies such as Illuminet Holdings. On April 25, 2002, when the
Company disclosed that its revenues would be less than analysts expectations
and were not in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,
its shares dropped from $18.24 to $9.98 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net

                              *********

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  * * *