CAR_Public/020603.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Monday, June 3, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 108

                              Headlines

BAYER CORP.: Two Firms File Suit Over Cholesterol Drug in WA Court
BECTON DICKINSON: Prevails in Three State Suits Over Medical Products
CANADA: Two Defendants In Metal Contamination Suit Forge Settlement
CHRONIMED INC.: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in MN
HENRY SCHEIN: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Physician's Suit in NJ Court

INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
LOCKERBIE BOMBING: Victims' Families React Negatively To $2.7B Offer
MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Agrees to Pay $10M For Illegal Strip Searches
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: In Talks To Settle Federal Securities Charges
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Blocking Re-Incorporation Proposal in TX

NEW FOCUS: Believes Suit Concluded As Plaintiffs Fail To Amend CA Suit
NEW FOCUS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NEW FOCUS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Suit
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: AARP Joins Generic Drugs Antitrust Suits
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Will Strongly Defend V. Alzheimer Patient Suit

RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Two Employee Overtime Wage Suits in CA Court
SAVANNAH RIVER: Residents Near Site Seek Intervention In Plutonium Suit
SPORT-HALEY INC.: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
TERRORIST ATTACK: Victims' Gay Partners Allowed To Receive Compensation
THINK NEW: Agrees To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY

WR GRACE: Accused of Hiding Assets To Avoid Asbestos Suits Compensation
WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces Charges Of `Deceiving' Energy Surtax in FL Suit


*Will Mold Be The Next Asbestos In The Class Action Litigation World?

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

CMS ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
DUKE ENERGY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DUKE ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DUKE ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Zwerling Schachter Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

LANTRONIX INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in CA
LANTRONIX INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
MERRILL LYNCH: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MIRANT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. GA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
REHABCARE GROUP: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI

REHABCARE GROUP: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO
VERISIGN INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
                              
                              *********


BAYER CORP.: Two Firms File Suit Over Cholesterol Drug in WA Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP and the Law Office of Harish Bharti filed a class
action on behalf of people who consumed the cholesterol-lowering
prescription drug, Baycol (cerivastatin), manufactured by Bayer
Pharmaceutical Division, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Baycol, as compared to other statin drugs in its class, causes a high
incidence of rhabdomyolysis, a severe condition in which skeletal
muscle suffers acute damage causing, in certain cases, renal failure,
liver damage and death.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Bayer voluntarily
removed Baycol from the US market last August because of reports of
sometimes-fatal rhabdomyolysis, the severe, muscle-related adverse
reaction to this anti-cholesterol product. To date, more than 100
deaths have been caused by, or substantially contributed to, Baycol
use. In addition, more than 1,000 cases of muscle weakness and/or
damage have been reported in association with the use of the drug.

Rhabdomyolysis is a condition that results in muscle cell breakdown and
release of the contents of muscle cells into the bloodstream. Symptoms
of rhabdomyolysis include muscle pain, weakness, tenderness, malaise,
fever, dark urine, nausea, and vomiting. The pain may involve specific
groups of muscles or may be generalized throughout the body. Additional
risks of Baycol include damage to the kidneys, liver, heart, and other
major organs.

For more information, contact Cheryl Conners by Phone: 800-792-4485, by
E-mail: info@kellerrohrback.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.SeattleClassAction.com.  


BECTON DICKINSON: Prevails in Three State Suits Over Medical Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. faces seven class actions filed in several state
courts against manufacturers and distributors of medical products. The
suits were filed on behalf of healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained needlesticks on conventional products, but have not become
infected with any disease.  The courts in three of the cases have
issued decisions favorable to the defendants.

The first suit was filed in the Montgomery Circuit County Court in
Alabama.  The Court dismissed the suit without prejudice on March 1,
2002.

Another suit is pending in the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.  
In January 2002, the Court denied class certification for the suit, a
decision that the plaintiffs appealed in the state Appellate Court.  In
March 2002, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiff's petition for
review of the trial Court's decision.

Another suit was filed in Camden County Superior Court in New Jersey.  
On March 6, 2002, the Court dismissed the case, including the
individual claims of all the named plaintiffs, with prejudice.  

The Company continues its vigorous defense of the four remaining class
actions pending.


CANADA: Two Defendants In Metal Contamination Suit Forge Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action relating to heavy metal contamination emanating from an
Inco refinery in Port Colborne has been settled with two of the six
defendants, the District School Board of Niagara and the Niagara
Catholic District School Board.

Negotiations involving two local schools, St. Therese Catholic and
Humberstone Public, have been ongoing for some time. Earlier testing by
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment at these sites had found levels
of nickel approximately three times the current value that triggers a
human health risk assessment.

Amongst other things, the agreement provides for the replacement of
soil in certain playground areas, the reduction of outdoor activities
on dusty days or when plowing at neighboring farms is taking place, the
continued use of school-instituted floor mats and good personal hygiene
practices, and the addition of an annual 30 minute information session
for students and teachers on the subject of health and environmental
hazards.

As part of the settlement, the parties are also acknowledging that the
School Boards are taking these steps voluntarily and not because any
actual risk to children has been established, that legal counsel
together with the experts assisting the parties and parents agree these
steps were not proven to be necessary but that the School Boards are to
be commended for responding to general concerns expressed within the
community, and that these steps are entirely in keeping with the same
precautionary advice given by the Public Health Department to parents
of these same children.

The Court has yet to approve the settlement.

The balance of the claim for $750 million dollars against all of the
other defendants including Inco, the Government of Ontario, the Region
of Niagara and the City of Port Colborne continues with certification
hearings beginning next Monday, June 3rd in Toronto and running for the
entire week.


CHRONIMED INC.: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronimed, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
charging the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer with violations of federal securities laws.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated
thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

The suit generally alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements about their financial statements in violation of the
securities laws.  The alleged violations arise out of the requirement
to restate previously issued financial statements.

A ruling on the motion is anticipated in early 2002.  The Company has
denied any wrongdoing, asserts that the case is wholly without merit,
and is vigorously defending against the suit.


HENRY SCHEIN: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Physician's Suit in NJ Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical distributor Henry Schein, Inc. faces a class action
pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris
County.  West Morris Pediatrics, PA filed the suit against the Company
and its subsidiary Caligor, on behalf of a nationwide class of all
physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers throughout New
Jersey and across the United States.  

According to a prior Class Action Reporter story, the suit contends
that the Company increased the price of a flu vaccine by 80% before
delivery for the 2001-2002 flu season.  The suit further states that
West Morris Pediatrics contracted with Caligor sales representatives
around November 2000 to buy vials of vaccine at a guaranteed, "pre-
booked" price of $35.99 per vial."  The suit asserts claims for:

     (1) breach of oral contract,  

     (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,  

     (3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,

     (4) unjust enrichment, and  

     (5) conversion

The Company has not yet submitted its response to the suit, but intends
to vigorously defend itself against it.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending against Informatica
Corporation filed an amended suit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York in April 2002.  

The amended suit is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from April 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  
The suit names as defendants the Company, two of its officers and
several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the
Company's April 29, 1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000
secondary public offering.

The amended complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had to allow certain customers to purchase
         shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions
         paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined
         prices.

Certain of these claims (including claims against the Company and its
present or former officers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
had not been asserted in the initial complaint filed November 8, 2001.  
The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suit is similar to other lawsuits filed in the the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial public
offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. Those
cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  Defendants' time to respond to
the complaints has been stayed pending a plan for further coordination.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
against it, and intends to defend itself vigorously.


LOCKERBIE BOMBING: Victims' Families React Negatively To $2.7B Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Families of the victims of the bombing of a Pan Am Flight over
Lockerbie, Scotland had varied reactions to the US$2.7 billion
settlement allegedly offered as compensation by Libya, the Associated
Press reports.

Some of the families oppose the idea of a settlement, saying it is just
a political ploy to get sanctions, now enforced by the United States
against Libya, lifted.  Others said they would accept, even if they did
not like the way it was made public.

The December 1988 bombing killed 270 people, mostly American, on board
the Frankfurt-London-New York flight.  In March, a Scottish appeals
court upheld the murder conviction of former Libyan intelligence agent
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi for the bombing.

The victims filed the suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act,
which allowed lawsuits against seven foreign governments for alleged
state-sponsored acts of terrorism.

"It's a business deal, not a compensation offer. It's contingent on how
much Libya has to gain from the United States by the lifting of the
sanctions," Daniel Cohen told AP.  "It puts us in the position of being
cheerleaders for (Moammar) Gadhafi."  Mr. Cohen's only child, Theodora,
20, a Syracuse University student, was one of the victims.

Victoria Cummock, whose husband, John, was killed in the bombing, told
AP the offer was an outrage.  "For us to accept $10 million when
there's a mass murder that took place and no admission of guilt is
given, you're saying you can kill as many Americans as you want and
we'll look the other way," she said.

Attorney for some of the plaintiffs Jim Kreindler, said in a statement,
"these are uncharted waters.It is the first time that any of the states
designated as sponsors of terrorism have offered compensation to
families of terror victims."

Georgia Nucci, whose 20-year-old son, Christopher Jones, died in the
blast, said Mr. Kreindler "very inappropriately" leaked details of the
settlement proposal.  "I think it has jeopardized the entire
settlement, and this is something that I wanted to put behind me," she
told AP.  "I'm livid. There is no deal. There's a suggestion. You just
don't do this in the middle of negotiations."


MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Agrees to Pay $10M For Illegal Strip Searches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Boston and the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department recently
consented to a $10 million settlement to end a class action brought by
women who claim jail officials illegally strip searched them,
Associated Press Newswires reports.  As many as 5,400 women could
participate in the settlement, said Howard Friedman, the plaintiffs'
attorney.

Until the lawsuit was filed in 1999, all women taken to the county jail
at Nashua Street were strip searched and held in one large detention
cell.  Suffolk County Sheriff spokesman Rick Lombardi said that after
the lawsuit was filed, authorities changed their policy:

     (1) they kept women in police lockups rather than bringing them to
         the county jail; and  

     (2) no strip searching was done prior to arraignment unless there
         was probable cause.

A federal judge found in favor of the women, ruling that the city and
county violated their constitutional rights.  The case was settled
after mediation.  Trials to determine damages for the five lead
plaintiffs are scheduled to begin next Monday.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: In Talks To Settle Federal Securities Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Software giant Microsoft Corporation is in talks with the Securities
and Exchange Commission to settle charges that it misrepresented its
financial results, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing unnamed
sources.  The Company allegedly did not expect to pay a fine.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will likely bring civil
charges that the Company failed to keep accurate books and records, the
paper said, citing people familiar with the matter. When companies
settle such charges, they typically agree to abide by SEC rules rather
than pay a fine, the Journal said.  A settlement could still be weeks
away and terms of any resolution may change, the report said.

"Microsoft has cooperated fully with the SEC but because this is not a
public inquiry, it's not appropriate to comment further or speculate
about the status," of the investigation or any settlement talks, a
company spokesman is quoted as saying.

Word of the SEC probe was first made public in late 1999, when the
agency began looking into whether the Company artificially lowered its
results and set aside reserves to boost revenues in future periods, the
report said.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Blocking Re-Incorporation Proposal in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries, Inc. faces a class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, relating to
its proposed change of incorporation from Delaware to Bermuda, the
Houston Business Journal reports.

Shareholder Steven Rosenberg filed the suit, seeking an injunction
against a shareholder vote on the re-incorporation proposal scheduled
for June 14. The lawsuit alleges:

     (1) that the Company's proxy statement contained misleading
         statements and omissions, including failure to disclose the
         plan's benefits or the risks that the re-incorporation won't
         result in favorable tax treatment;

     (2) that the proxy ballot violates Securities & Exchange
         Commission rules by improperly bundling several separate
         matters and by failing to comply with disclosure requirements;

A coalition of labor unions and institutional investors has been
opposing the management plan, the Houston Business Journal reports. The
AFL-CIO, union-owned Amalgamated Bank, Central Laborers' Pension Fund
and the Laborers' International Union of North America sent a letter
this month to investors urging them to vote against the proposal.
Amalgamated's LongView Collective Investment Fund holds more than
50,000 shares in the Company. The other three organizations have about
1,000 shares altogether.

The Company said in an SEC filing that it believes the allegations are
"without merit" and it intends to "vigorously defend" itself against
the lawsuit.


NEW FOCUS: Believes Suit Concluded As Plaintiffs Fail To Amend CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Focus, Inc. believes the consolidated securities class action
pending against it in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California has been concluded, since the plaintiffs failed
to file an amended suit on the deadline set by the court.

The suit arose from eight securities suits filed against the Company
and several of its officers and directors, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
suits were filed on behalf of a purported class that purchased New
Focus common stock between October 25,2000 and March 5, 2001. The Court
later ordered the cases consolidated.

In February 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing without
prejudice the claims against the Company and its officers and
directors.  The order dismissing the action gave the plaintiffs a
deadline of thirty days from February 15, 2002 in which to file an
amended complaint. No amended complaint was filed by the deadline and
the Company therefore believes that this lawsuit has been concluded.


NEW FOCUS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending against New Focus,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York filed an amended suit in April 2002.  The suit names as
defendants the Company, seven of its officers of directors and:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) Chase Securities, Inc.,

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and

     (4) CIBC World Markets Corporatio

The suit, filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common
stock between May 18, 2000 and December 6, 2000, alleges:

     (i) violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
         all defendants related to the initial public offering and the
         secondary offering;

    (ii) violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
         Section 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 against the
         individual defendants;

   (iii) violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against the
         Company; and

    (iv) violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933
         and Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, of
         the Securities Act of 1934 against the underwriter defendants.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
revealed that the suit is similar to hundreds of class actions pending
in the same court against more than 400 other issuers of stocks.  These
cases have all been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordination and decisions on pretrial motions, discovery, and related
matters other than trial.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits
and will defend the litigation vigorously.  An unfavorable resolution
of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the business,
results of operations or financial condition of the Company.


NEW FOCUS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative suit against New Focus, Inc.  
in the Delaware Court of Chancery voluntarily dismissed the suit
without prejudice pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 41(a).

The suit was initiated in April 2001, on behalf of the Company.  The
suit alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by engaging in alleged wrongful conduct including
conduct complained of in the securities litigation described above.  
The complaint named the Company solely as a nominal defendant against
whom the plaintiff seeks no recovery.

The Company believes that the ultimate disposition of these claims will
not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
operations.


PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: AARP Joins Generic Drugs Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired
Persons, as part of a broad effort to address high drug costs,
announced it will join several lawsuits that are seeking class action,
charging pharmaceutical companies with illegally blocking generic
competitors, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report.

The nation's largest advocacy group for older Americans added its
considerable clout to the efforts of the Prescription Access Litigation
(PAL) project, a Boston-based coalition of consumer and health groups
formed to fight legal battles over drug pricing.  The AARP move also
raises the profile of the cases amid a hot debate in Congress over
drug-pricing and how to add a drug benefit to Medicare, the federal
program for the elderly and disabled.

In addition to pressing lawmakers to pass drug-benefit legislation this
year, the AARP recently launched a $10 million education campaign to
encourage the use of generic drugs.  In announcing its participation in
the lawsuits, AARP said it has set up a hot line so members can share
their problems about the high cost of prescription medicines.

"Our aim is to help people get affordable access to the drugs they
need," said Bill Novelli, AARP's chief executive.

AARP attorneys will participate in three cases with the litigation
project.  The group chose the three because they involve drugs widely
used by people 50 years old and older.  AARP counts 35 million people
in that age group as its members.  A brief description of each of these
lawsuits follows:

     (1) one lawsuit charges that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. acted
         illegally to maintain its patent exclusivity on anxiety
         medication BuSpar;

     (2) another alleges that Schering-Plough Corp., closely held
         Upshur-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products (recently
         renamed Wyeth) conspired to keep a generic potassium-chloride
         supplement off the market; and

     (3) another lawsuit claims that AstraZeneca PLC and Barr
         Laboratories Inc. illegally colluded to keep a generic version
         of breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the market.

The lawsuits, filed by PAL about a year ago, allege that consumers are
paying inflated prices because of the companies' actions.  The
companies have denied doing anything wrong.


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Will Strongly Defend V. Alzheimer Patient Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quintiles Transnational Corporation intends to vigorously defend
against a class action filed in the State Court of Richmond County,
Georgia.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.,

     (2) Pharmed Inc.,

     (3) Debra Brown,

     (4) Bruce I. Diamond and

     (5) Quintiles Laboratories Limited, a Company subsidiary

The suit was filed on behalf of 185 Alzheimer's patients who
participated in drug studies involving an experimental drug
manufactured by Novartis and their surviving spouses.  The suit alleges
claims for:

     (i) breach of fiduciary duty,

    (ii) civil conspiracy,

   (iii) unjust enrichment,

    (iv) misrepresentation,

     (v) Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
         Act violations,

    (vi) infliction of emotional distress,

   (vii) battery,

  (viii) negligence and

    (ix) loss of consortium as to class member spouses


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Two Employee Overtime Wage Suits in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the Orange
County, California Superior Court by its former employees, on behalf of
all former and current Company employees who worked in the positions of
general manager and assistant manager, and were classified as "exempt."

The suits involve the issue of whether employees and former employees
in the general and assistant manager positions who worked in the
California restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified
as exempt and deprived of overtime pay.

The Company believes these cases are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the related claims.  These cases are in the
early stages of discovery and the status of the class action
certification is yet to be determined for both suits.


SAVANNAH RIVER: Residents Near Site Seek Intervention In Plutonium Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of residents living near the Savannah River Site (SRS) recently
filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit and to require the US
Department of Energy to pay them if plutonium is brought into South
Carolina from Colorado, Associated Press Newswires reported.  This
motion is now part of the lawsuit brought by Governor James Hodges to
keep the federal government from permanently storing the weapons-grade
nuclear material at the facility near the Georgia border.

Neil Robinson, a lawyer for the group of residents said that the
request for compensation is a Fifth Amendment right.  Attorneys for the
residents said that the federal law cited in the motion allows people
in a class action to collect up to $10,000 each.  

Additionally, Daniel Black, president of the Tri-county Alliance, in
nearby Barnwell, said even though the federal government produced
dangerous radioactive material for bombs at SRS for years, the site has
never paid a dime as far as impact fees.

US District Judge Cameron Currie is scheduled to hear arguments in Gov.
Hodges' lawsuit June 13, two days before the Energy Department (DOE)
could begin shipping surplus plutonium from the former Rocky Flats
plant near Denver.

The governor has said the state will take the plutonium and process it
into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors or for an immobilization
project if DOE officials agree to operate under a court-ordered consent
decree.  That would mean the state could stop shipments or force
removal of material if DOE failed to live up to its obligations under
the agreement.  

The DOE has said that would require it to give up sovereignty to the
state, and is asking Judge Currie to rule immediately in its favor.

The Energy Department contends shipments to South Carolina are
essential to meeting its goal of cleaning up and closing Rocky Flats by
2006.  Gov. Hodges, however, has asked the court to stop plutonium from
being shipped to SRS, because DOE officials failed to conduct tests to
evaluate the effects the material would have on the environment.

"This lawsuit focuses on what could or should happen if the federal
government stores plutonium in South Carolina," the Governor said.  "I
am working to keep the plutonium from being shipped here in the first
place unless we have legally enforceable safeguards in place to protect
South Carolinians' health and safety."

Referring to the residents' motion, Gov. Hodges said, "This new suit
doesn't interfere with my goal.  It is just another sign of the growing
opposition to plutonium-dumping in South Carolina."


SPORT-HALEY INC.: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sport-Haley, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado to dismiss an amended consolidated securities
class action filed against the Company and three of its officers and
directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Security Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
knowingly overstating the Company's financial results, thereby causing
the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated.  The complaint
further alleges that the individual defendants are liable by virtue of
being controlling persons of the Company, pursuant to Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The allegations arise out of the Company's restatements of its
financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998,
which the Company previously reported.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in February
2002.  In April 2002, having been granted an extension of time, the
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion.  The motion
is currently pending before the court.

The defendants believe that the action is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.  Based upon current information,
management is not able to estimate the amount of damages, if any, that
might be awarded to the plaintiffs and the class, if the Court
certifies the action as a class action and the lawsuit is determined in
favor of the plaintiffs.


TERRORIST ATTACK: Victims' Gay Partners Allowed To Receive Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The September 11 Victim Compensation Fund will probably grant
compensation to some gay partners of men and women who died in the
terrorist attacks, Fund Special Master Kenneth Feinberg told The New
York Times.  Partners who have the cooperation of the victim's next of
kin will almost definitely receive awards.

"If the next of kin is supportive and there's no dispute, it's a non-
issue," Mr. Feinberg told the Times, "If the personal representative,
say a parent, comes to me and says `Cut a check for the same-sex
partner,' there will be no problem. Then it is a ministerial function.
What do I care?"  Mr. Feinberg added that cases in which there is no
cooperation from the next of kin will be reviewed individually.

The fund, set up by US Congress shortly after the attacks, is part of
the US$15 billion airline bailout bill.  The minimum award to victims
is US$250,000 and an average will be about US$1.8 million.  In return,
recipients must promise not to file a suit against the airlines.  There
are 22 known gay surviving partners of attack victims, the Times said.

Same-sex unions are not recognized in New York, however, Mr. Feinberg
said state leaders have taken actions to increase the chances that
discretion can be used when evaluating the situations of domestic
partners, both same-sex and heterosexual.

Last week, Gov. George Pataki signed legislation that included measures
intended to give guidance to officials determining the eligibility of
domestic partners applying to the fund, the Associated Press Reports.  
Gov. Pataki also issued an executive order granting gay partners equal
benefits from New York State's Crime Victims Board. In addition, he and
other officials petitioned the Bush administration for recognition of
relationships based on the "totality of circumstances" rather than
legal marriages.


THINK NEW: Agrees To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THINK New Ideas, Inc. agreed to settle a consolidated securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock in the period
from November 14, 1997, through September 21, 1998.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Ronald Bloom, former officer and former member of the
         Company's Board of Directors,

     (2) Melvin Epstein, former Company officer, and

     (3) Scott Mednick, former Company officer

The consolidated suit arose from seven class actions commenced in
October 1998.  The suit alleges that:

     (1) the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
         directors disseminated materially false and misleading
         information about the Company's financial position and results
         of operations through certain public statements and in certain
         documents filed by the Company with the Securities and
         Exchange Commission;

     (2) these statements and documents caused the market price of the
         Company's common stock to be artificially inflated;

     (3) the plaintiffs purchased shares of common stock at such
         artificially inflated prices and, as a consequence of such
         purchases, suffered damages.

On April 18, 2002, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this action for an amount that is within the limits of
applicable insurance coverage.  Final settlement is subject to court
and shareholders class approval.

In the opinion of Company management, the final disposition of the suit
will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position or
results of operations of the Company.


WR GRACE: Accused of Hiding Assets To Avoid Asbestos Suits Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Justice accused construction and
chemical company WR Grace & Co., of concealing its assets in an attempt
to evade responsibility for helping millions of Americans across the
country who have asbestos-contaminated insulation in their homes or
have been sickened by cancer-causing materials, the Seattle Post-
Intelligencer reports.

The Company has been the target of tens of thousands of asbestos-
related lawsuits, after news stories circulated nationwide about
hundreds of miners and their families being killed or sickened by
asbestos-contaminated vermiculite in a Company-owned mine in Libby,
Montana.  Tainted insulation from that vermiculite is estimated to be
in millions of homes.  However, the minute the Company filed for
bankruptcy protection, all claims were frozen and new ones disallowed,
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.

In court documents filed last week, the government contends that the
Company hid the assets in new companies it set up before filing for
bankruptcy protection in April 2001.  The Justice Department then asked
the court to allow it to intervene in the bankruptcy proceedings.  

If the intervention is successful and the money is returned to the
bankruptcy pool, the families of thousands of people sickened or killed
by exposure to the Company's zonolite insulation and Monocote
fireproofing may get some help, according to attorneys representing
asbestos plaintiffs.

Ed Westbrook, a lawyer in South Carolina who heads the asbestos
property damage committee for the bankruptcy action said that thousands
of people with Zonolite insulation in their homes, who joined class
actions against the Company before the bankruptcy might get help.  If
that class action goes forward, Mr. Westbrook says, the Company may
have to inform millions of other Americans that they have cancer-
causing insulation in their homes.

However, some members of the legal team, that had joined up with
government forensic accountants who specialize in tracking convoluted
money transfers and company acquisitions, said they doubted the Justice
Department would actually be allowed to file the unique intervention.
They indicated that the political climate might interfere, a prediction
based on the fact that President Bush's administration, they said, has
been working with Republicans in Congress on legislation that would
restrict the ability of asbestos victims to file lawsuits.


WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces Charges Of `Deceiving' Energy Surtax in FL Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth filed a complaint against
the Wyndham Hotels saying guests were not told in advance about energy
surcharges that the chain had been collecting last year, Associated
Press Newswires reported.  The suit is pending in the Leon County
Circuit Court against Wyndham International, Inc., an affiliated
company, Patriot American Hospitality, as well as four people who
oversaw the energy charge policy for the Company.

The complaint says $2.50 to $3 per day surcharges were deceptive
because customers did not know about them until checkout.  The Company
added them to customers' bills in several areas last year as power
costs skyrocketed, as did many other national chains.  The practice
ended at the end of 2001.

"In much of their advertising and in many direct contacts with
consumers booking rooms, the companies did not disclose the extra
charges," Mr. Butterworth said.  "They quoted one price to consumers
and charged them a higher price upon checking out.  That is clearly
deceptive and contrary to state law."

However, the Company says it already has settled a national class
action to pay back customers - including Floridians - who may have paid
the charges.  Darcie Brossart, a spokeswoman for the Dallas-based
Company said the allegations were the same as those that were settled
earlier this year in the suit.  

As part of that settlement, customers who paid the charge could receive
a $15 voucher.  "The relief is there already for the Florida
residents," Ms. Brossart said.

Attorney General Butterworth's complaint also alleged that Company
employees were told not to tell consumers asking about reservation that
an energy surcharge would be added to the charges.  Ms. Brossart said
there were signs at the check-in areas of Wyndham Hotels and in the
rooms advising customers that they would pay the separate energy
charge.  The company settled, she said, because it could not say for
sure that every property had the signs up or told guests about the
charge.



*Will Mold Be The Next Asbestos In The Class Action Litigation World?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank recently discovered the presence of mold at its 40-story
skyscraper near Ground Zero.  It was a discovery far more unexpected
than the asbestos particles that invaded the building after it was
vacated on September 11, according to a recent report appearing in
Fortune Magazine.  There is speculation that the still-empty tower is
no longer habitable.

Deutsche Bank is yet another casualty of mold, which is being blamed
not just for building damage but also for health problems such as hay-
fever-like allergies, nosebleeds and possibly nerve damage.  Almost
overnight, says Fortune, the same stuff that has been sprouting in dank
places since before the dinosaurs has become the `bete noir' of
homeowners, landlords, builders and contractors across the country.

Jerry Carnahan, head of homeowner policies at Farmer's Insurance, says
the number of mold-related claims against his firm in Texas rose from
400 in all of 2000 to 2,500 in January 2002 alone.  "In my 23 years in
this business, I have never seen anything ramp up like mold."  In past
years, Mr. Carnahan said, insuring against it would be akin to
"insuring against dust."  

Robert Hartwig, an insurance industry economist, estimates that Texas
mold could cost carriers half a billion dollars and says mold claims
have been filed in virtually every state.

Mold began to grab headlines about ten years ago as scientists tried to
ascertain why new commercial buildings often caused respiratory and
flu-like symptoms. The usual suspects, lead paint, carbon monoxide and
adhesive solvents circulating in tightly sealed buildings, were ruled
out.  Then, gobs of mold were found in a museum basement in New York
and a Florida courthouse.  Spores flourish, it turns out, when the
cardboard backing on sheetrock, which has been widely used since the
1960s for interior walls, gets soaked.  Wet ceiling tiles and wood
sprout mold too, according to Fortune's report.

One of the first mold lawsuits was brought in 1995 by an actor living
in Malibu, who found it hard to breathe when he closed the windows of
his new ocean-view mansion.  It turned out the builder had pumped
shredded newspaper behind the walls to serve as insulation, which was
soon saturated by a leaky roof.  "We opened the walls and there was
this black Jell-o oozing out," says the actor's attorney, Alex
Robertson.  Mr. Robertson won a $1.5 million settlement from the
builder and has since handled 1,000 other mold cases.

However, it was a 2001 Texas case that created the biggest stir.  
Melinda Ballard alleged that Farmers Insurance did not move quickly
enough to stop a fast-spreading mold that was so toxic that a guest
went deaf in one ear after spending half an hour in her house.  A jury
awarded Ms. Ballard an unheard-of $32 million.  

Farmers Insurance announced a month later that it would no longer cover
extensive mold claims when policies came up for renewal.  That spawned
the "mold chasers." Lawyers, insurance adjusters and contractors,
sometimes working together, offered to root out mold at extravagant
prices and sue insurance companies that refused to pay.

The lawyers say personal-injury mold cases will be hard to prove, but
class actions against the corporations that make building materials are
likely to be successful.  Only one has been filed so far against Behr
Paint's mildew deck stain.  

However, Fortune states that mold litigation will probably not become
as big as asbestos litigation.  While asbestos litigation is predicted
to cost insurers and manufacturers $60 billion to $70 billion, the
tally for mold is likely to be far lower.  Unlike toxic asbestos,
barely half a dozen of the thousands of mold varieties are believed to
cause health problems.  

Still, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) is expected to introduce
a bill shortly that would protect consumers from toxic mold.  If a
panel of scientists, convened recently by the United States government,
clearly links mold to serious illnesses, expect the mold story to keep
on spreading.

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

CMS ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired CMS Energy Corporation (NYSE:CMS) securities
between August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the
company and certain key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Jason L. Brodsky or Evan J. Smith by Mail: 11
Bala Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
JBrodsky@Brodsky-Smith.com or Esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com


DUKE ENERGY: 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 Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE: DUK)
publicly traded securities during the period between July 22, 1999 and
May 17, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance. As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had engaged in approximately $1 billion of
         "round-trip" energy trades that provided no economic benefit
         for the Company;

     (2) that the Company lacked the necessary internal controls to
         adequately monitor the trading of its power; and

     (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's revenues and
         financial results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On May 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company issued a
press release announcing that it had "analyzed its trades for the
three-year period from 1999 through 2001 to identify those trades which
may have some of the characteristics of sell/buy-back trades." These
trades, known as "round-trip" or "wash" transactions, involve the
simultaneous buying and trading of power in the same price and same
amount and provide no economic benefit to the Company.

Following this announcement, Company shares fell $1.18 per share to
close at $33.52 per share, after reaching a split-adjusted class period
high of $44.97 on November 30, 2000, on volume of more than 11.5
million shares traded, or more than three times the average daily
volume.

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


DUKE ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Duke Energy Corporation
(NYSE: DUK) between July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002, 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, throughout the class period, as
alleged in the suit, defendants issued numerous statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the Company's
increasing revenues and financial performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company had engaged in approximately $1 billion of
         "round-trip" energy trades that provided no economic benefit
         for the Company;

     (2) that the Company lacked the necessary internal controls to
         adequately monitor the trading of its power; and

     (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's revenues and
         financial results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On May 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company issued a
press release announcing that it had "analyzed its trades for the
three-year period from 1999 through 2001 to identify those trades which
may have some of the characteristics of sell/buy-back trades."  These
trades, known as "round-trip" or "wash" transactions, involve the
simultaneous buying and trading of power in the same price and same
amount and provide no economic benefit to the Company.

Following this announcement, shares of the Company fell $1.18 per share
to close at $33.52 per share, after reaching a split-adjusted class
period high of $44.97 on November 30, 2000, on volume of more than 11.5
million shares traded, or more than three times the average daily
volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


DUKE ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Duke Energy
Corporation (NYSE:DUK) between July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002,
inclusive.   The suit is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Richard Priory,

     (2) Robert Brace,

     (3) David L. Hauser,

     (4) Keith G. Butler,

     (5) Sandra P. Meyer,

     (6) Jeffrey L. Boyer and

     (7) Richard J. Osborne

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 July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance.

As alleged in the suit, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that the Company had engaged in approximately $1 billion of
         "round-trip" energy trades that provided no economic benefit
         for the Company;

    (ii) that the Company lacked the necessary internal controls to
         adequately monitor the trading of its power; and

   (iii) that as a result, the value of the Company's revenues and
         financial results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On May 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company issued a
press release announcing that it had "analyzed its trades for the
three-year period from 1999 through 2001 to identify those trades which
may have some of the characteristics of sell/buy-back trades."  These
trades, known as "round-trip" or "wash" transactions, involve the
simultaneous buying and trading of power in the same price and same
amount and provide no economic benefit to the Company.

Following this announcement, shares of the Company fell $1.18 per share
to close at $33.52 per share, after reaching a split-adjusted class
period high of $44.97 on November 30, 2000, on volume of more than 11.5
million shares traded, or more than three times the average daily
volume.

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: DukeEnergycase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


DYNEGY INC.: Zwerling Schachter Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN) between April 17, 2001 and April
24, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors 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 during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The suit alleges, among other things, that defendants misled investors:

     (1) by issuing false and misleading financial statements in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles;

     (2) by engaging in false and misleading public disclosures
         regarding its cash flows from operations and

     (3) by failing to disclose details of its "Project Alpha," a
         transaction involving special purpose entities and a
         partnership the Company created for the purposes of increasing
         cash flow from operations and decreasing tax costs.

On April 25, 2002, prior to the market's opening, the Company shocked
the investing public by announcing that after consulting with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Company would file an
amended Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, reducing
operating cash flow from $811 million to $511 million.

These disclosures caused the Company's stock to collapse nearly 30% by
the end of trading on April 25, 2002.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Jayne Nykolyn by Phone:
800-721-3900 by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.zsz.com.  


LANTRONIX INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Lantronix Inc.
(Nasdaq:LTRX) from April 25, 2001 and May 15, 2002, 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
during the class period, defendants caused Company 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:

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

     (2) deceived the investing public, including plaintiff and other
         class members, into acquiring Company 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 it could post the
revenue and earnings per share growth claimed by defendants.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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


LANTRONIX INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, 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: LTRXE)
publicly traded securities during the period between April 25, 2001 and
May 15, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
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:

     (1) artificially inflated the price of Company 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 allegedly 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 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


MERRILL LYNCH: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action against
Merrill Lynch & Co. on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (Nasdaq:TFSM) between February 18, 2000
and November 9, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
and that these practices came to light on April 8, 2002, when after a
10-month investigation, the New York State Attorney General concluded
that since 1999, internet research analysts of Merrill Lynch published
ratings for internet stocks that were misleading.

For more details, contact Jason L. Brodsky or Evan J. Smith by Mail: 11
Bala Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
JBrodsky@Brodsky-Smith.com or Esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com.


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and First
Vice President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Aether Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: AETH) between November 15, 1999
and February 20, 2002 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing analyst reports regarding Aether that recommended the
purchase of Aether common stock and which set price targets for Aether
common stock, which were materially false and misleading and lacked any
reasonable factual basis.

The complaint further alleges that, when issuing their Aether analyst
reports, the defendants failed to disclose significant, material
conflicts of interest, which resulted from their use of Mr. Blodget's
reputation and his ability to issue favorable analyst reports, to
obtain investment banking business for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Aether analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Aether stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information they possessed about
Aether.  Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained
"ACCUMULATE/BUY"or "BUY/BUY" recommendations on Aether in order to
obtain and support lucrative financial deal for Merrill Lynch.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading analyst reports,
Aether's common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the
class period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Jonathan K. Levine by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and First
Vice President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Pets.com, Inc. (OTC:IPET) between March 7, 2000 and November
7, 2000 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing analyst reports regarding Pets.com that
recommended the purchase of Pets.com common stock and which set price
targets for Pets.com common stock, which were materially false and
misleading and lacked any reasonable factual basis.

The complaint further alleges that, when issuing their Pets.com analyst
reports, the defendants failed to disclose significant, material
conflicts of interest, which resulted from their use of Mr. Blodget's
reputation and his ability to issue favorable analyst reports, to
obtain investment banking business for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Pets.com analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Pets.com stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information, which they
possessed about Pets.com.

Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained
"ACCUMULATE/ACCUMULATE"or "BUY/BUY" recommendations on Pets.com in
order to obtain and support lucrative financial deal for Merrill Lynch.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading analyst reports,
Pets.com's common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during
the class period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Jonathan K. Levine by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and First
Vice President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPWV) between October 16, 2000
and August 13, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing analyst reports regarding Openwave that
recommended the purchase of Openwave common stock and which set price
targets for Openwave common stock, which were materially false and
misleading and lacked any reasonable factual basis.

The complaint further alleges that, when issuing their Openwave analyst
reports, the Defendants failed to disclose significant, material
conflicts of interest, which resulted from their use of Mr. Blodget's
reputation and his ability to issue favorable analyst reports, to
obtain investment banking business for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Openwave analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Openwave stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information they possessed about
Openwave.  Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained
"ACCUMULATE/BUY"or "BUY/BUY" recommendations on Openwave in order to
obtain and support lucrative financial deals for Merrill Lynch.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading analyst reports,
Openwave's common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during
the class period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Jonathan K. Levine by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


MIRANT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA lodged a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Mirant Corporation
(NYSE:MIR) securities between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, against the Company and:

     (1) S. Marce Fuller,

     (2) Raymond D. Hill,

     (3) Richard J. Pershing and

     (4) James A. Ward

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

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Peregrine Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRGN) securities between April 4, 2001
and May 3, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Stephen P. Gardner,

     (2) Matthew C. Gless and

     (3) Arthur Andersen LLP

The defendants allegedly violated federal securities laws by, among
other things, issuing false misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition as well as its present and future
business prospects.

More specifically, on May 6, 2002, the Company disclosed that its board
of directors authorized an internal investigation of accounting
inaccuracies involving as much as $100 million in revenue recognized in
transactions with the Company's indirect channels in fiscal years 2001
and 2002.

The Company further disclosed that these channel transactions and other
accounting issues under investigation may impact its financial results
for periods in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. At the same time, the
Company disclosed that its CEO and CFO had both resigned their
positions with the Company.

For more details, contact Marc L. Godino by Phone: 888-388-4605 by E-
mail: mgodino@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.secfraud.com.  


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

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

On Monday, May 6, 2002, the Company announced that its board of
directors had authorized the audit committee of the board to conduct an
internal investigation into accounting inaccuracies, totaling as much
as $ 100 million.  Simultaneously the board of directors announced that
the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer had both resigned their positions with the
Company.

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

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


REHABCARE GROUP: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired RehabCare Group, Inc. (NYSE:RHB) securities
between February 7, 2001 and January 21, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and certain key officers and directors.

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

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


REHABCARE GROUP: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired RehabCare Group, Inc.
(NYSE:RHB) securities between February 7, 2001 and January 21, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, against the Company, H. Edwin Trusheim and Alan C.
Henderson.

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

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


VERISIGN INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN) between January 25, 2001 and April 25,
2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Stratton D. Sclavos,

     (2) Robert J. Korzeniewski and

     (3) Dana L. Evan

The defendants allegedly violated federal securities laws by, among
other things, issuing false misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition as well as its present and future
business prospects.

More 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 the
Company's product demand.

In addition, during the class period, the individual defendants sold
$26 million worth of their own stock.  On April 25, 2002, when the
Company disclosed that its revenues would not meet 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 Marc Godino by Phone: 888-388-4605 by E-mail:
mgodino@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.secfraud.com.  


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *