CAR_Public/020605.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, June 5, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 110

                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Plaintiffs Ask For Leave To File Amended Securities Suit
ALPHARMA INC.: NJ Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
ARAMARK CORPORATION: White Employee Files Race Discrimination Suit
AUTOBYTEL INC.: Securities Suit Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
AUTOWEB.COM: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY

AXEDA SYSTEMS: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Bishop Of Lexington Diocese Accused For Second Time
CHILES OFFSHORE: TX Court Approves $1M Settlement of Antitrust Suit
CRESCENT OPERATING: Settles Suits For WARN Act Violations in DE Court
DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Rules Late Notice "Not Misleading or Confusing"

GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
INTERFACE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
NEW YORK: State Medical Care For Inmates, Juvenile Detainees In Dispute
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Scott + Scott Expands Class Period In Suit in CA
PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Release Verdict Royalty Owners Suit

RACING CHAMPIONS: Asks CA State Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
ROCHE HOLDING: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit
TIFFANY GATE: Customers Sue After Eating Contaminated Greek Pasta Salad
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Plaintiff Testifies in First FL Suit V. Big Tobacco
US LIQUIDS: Trial in Consolidated Securities Suit Set For November 2002

VAN TRAN: Disabled Commuters Sue for ADA, Rehabilitation Act Violations
VENTURE CATALYST: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Suit Over Speer Merger
VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WASHINGTON: System Change On Hold As State Appeals State Judge's Order
XO COMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

CMS ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
FLAG TELECOM: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MIRANT CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
MIRANT CORPORATION: Dyer & Shuman Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. GA

MIRANT CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MIRANT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Fruchter & Twersky Lodges Securities Suit in WI
SEITEL INC.: Zwerling Schachter Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

                              
                             *********


ADAMS GOLF: Plaintiffs Ask For Leave To File Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Adams
Golf, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware for permission to file an amended complaint, after the Court
dismissed the suit in December 2001.

The consolidated suit arose from several suits commenced in June 1999
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO).

The consolidated suit alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
Company's IPO.  In particular, the suit alleged that the Company's
prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was materially false
and misleading in at least two areas.  

Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market sales)
allegedly threatened its long-term profits.  Plaintiffs also alleged
that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry
suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level, which had
an adverse impact on the Company's sales.

In July 2000, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which the
court granted in December 2001.  The court ruled that the plaintiffs
failed to plead any facts supporting their claim that the Company or
its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws.

On January 14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  In the motion, the plaintiffs allege that, if given
another opportunity, they would be able to amend the original causes of
action to state actionable claims.  The Company has opposed the above
motion and is awaiting the Court's response.


ALPHARMA INC.: NJ Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed with prejudice the securities class action against Alpharma
Inc.

The suit charges the Company with violations of federal securities laws
as a result of allegedly improper revenue recognition practices,
including practices relating to the Company's animal health business in
Brazil. The period during which the plaintiffs may appeal this final
ruling of the Court has not yet expired.

Separately, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has informed the
Company that it has issued a formal Order of Investigation.  This
investigation relates to the Company's revenue recognition practices in
connection with the previously reported revisions to the Company's
financial results that were completed in 2001. The Company anticipates
cooperating with this review.


ARAMARK CORPORATION: White Employee Files Race Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARAMARK Corporation faces a race discrimination and retaliation class
action filed by a white employee, relating to its operations at
Presbyterian Hospital in Philadelphia.  This suit follows the filing of
a race discrimination class action by African American employees filed
against ARAMARK/Presbyterian in August 2001.

The first suit, filed by ten African American employees on behalf of
black workers in certain departments at ARAMARK/Presbyterian, alleges
that the defendants engaged in ongoing, pervasive racial discrimination
in disciplinary actions against class members.

Among other things, the class action further alleges that four of the
named plaintiffs were fired based upon fabricated disciplinary charges,
when in actuality, they were terminated because they objected to the
discriminatory pattern of discipline.  In addition, white supervisors
are alleged to have used various racial epithets, such as "n*****" and
"black punk" when referring to African American employees.

The plaintiff in the second suit alleges she was retaliated against in
violation of state and federal civil rights laws after she spoke up in
defense of the earlier-filed class action, and after she reported to
Company management that she was asked to lie to support a disciplinary
charge against an older African American employee made by a white
supervisor.

Prior to these incidents, the suit alleges that as a white employee,
plaintiff was shown favoritism over African American employees by white
supervisors in the assignment of hours and overtime, and in the respect
and dignity that management showed her.

For more details, contact Shannon Carson by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: 215-875-3000 by E-mail: scarson@bm.net
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.InvestorProtect.com


AUTOBYTEL INC.: Securities Suit Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action against Autobytel, Inc. is
being coordinated with 300 other nearly identical actions filed against
other companies in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The consolidated suit arose from three suits commenced in August 2001
against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and
officers and the underwriters involved in the Company's initial public
offering.  

The consolidated suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

Plaintiffs further allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

No date has been set for any response to the complaint.  The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend the action.


AUTOWEB.COM: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Autoweb.com faces a consolidated securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters involved in its initial public offering of federal
securities violations.

The defendants allegedly violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The consolidated suit is being coordinated with over 300 other nearly
identical actions filed against other companies and no date has been
set for any response to the complaint.  The Company believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the complaints and intends to vigorously
defend the actions.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from
July 15, 1999 to April 27, 2000, alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company's motion to dismiss is presently fully briefed and the
parties are waiting for a hearing date to be scheduled.  The Company
believes that the suits are without merit and that it has meritorious
defenses to the actions.  The Company plans to vigorously defend the
litigation.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Bishop Of Lexington Diocese Accused For Second Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop J. Kendrick Williams of Lexington's Catholic diocese has been
accused for the second time of sexual abuse that allegedly occurred
years ago, The Lexington Herald-Leader recently reported.

David Hall, 51, of New Haven made the accusations in a lawsuit against
the Archdiocese of Louisville that was filed yesterday in Jefferson
Circuit Court.  Mr. Hall's lawsuit described incidents that allegedly
occurred in 1969, when he was a student at St. Catherine's High School
in New Haven, where Bishop Williams was then serving as a priest.  The
school was part of the Louisville archdiocese.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Hall alleged that during confession, the then Rev.
Williams grabbed his genitals and assaulted him.  During earlier
confessionals, the then Rev. Williams had asked him inappropriate
questions about his sexual behavior, according to the lawsuit.   Mr.
Hall was 18 at the time.

The lawsuit further alleged that the archdiocese knew that the then
Rev. Williams had a pattern of sexually abusing students but failed to
take action.  Mr. Hall is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Tom Shaughnessy, spokesman for the Lexington diocese, said Bishop
Williams was out of town and that the diocese had no comment.  The
Louisville archdiocese also declined to comment.  Last week, the
archdiocese said it did not have any complaints on record against
Bishop Williams when he was a priest in the Louisville archdiocese.

Bishop Williams went on leave of absence last week, a required by
diocesan policy, after he was accused of sex abuse in another lawsuit.
In that case, James W. Bennett, 33, of Louisville, alleged that then
Rev. Williams molested him in 1981 at the Church of Our Lady in
Louisville, where then Rev. Williams was a priest.  Mr. Bennett was a
12-year-old altar boy at the time.

Mr. Hall said that he decided to come forward when he read that Bishop
Williams said he did not remember Mr. Bennett, and that the Bishop had
added, "I have never been brutal to anyone in my entire life."  He said
he had told his parents that the then Rev. Williams had "tried to fool
with me," but his parents didn't him.

The Lexington and Covington dioceses have been named as defendants in a
$50 million class action lawsuit, alleging that the two dioceses were
engaged in a cover-up of the sexual abuses committed by priests in the
respective dioceses, as well as a failure to report such sexual abuses
to the appropriate authorities.


CHILES OFFSHORE: TX Court Approves $1M Settlement of Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division approved the US$1 million settlement proposed by
Chiles Offshore, Inc. to settle a class action filed on behalf of
offshore workers against all of the major offshore drilling companies
that operated in the US Gulf of Mexico since 1990.  The proposed class
includes persons hired in the United States by the companies to work in
the US Gulf of Mexico and around the world.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies, through trade groups, shared
information in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state
laws.  The lawsuit is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief as
well as attorney's fees and costs.

Although the Company believes that it had valid defenses in this
matter, it determined that protracted litigation would be a distraction
to the operation of its business and, in May 2001, agreed to settle the
plaintiffs' outstanding claims for a conditional payment of $1 million.

In April 2002, the court issued an order finally approving the
settlement, finally certifying the settlement class and entered a final
judgment and order of dismissal of the suit.  The Company expects to
pay the final settlement amount in the second quarter of 2002.


CRESCENT OPERATING: Settles Suits For WARN Act Violations in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Crescent Operating Inc. agreed to settle class actions charging it,
Crescent Partnership, and Charter Behavioral Health Systems, LLC with
violations of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Act in the closing of certain healthcare facilities in 1999 and 2000.

A global stipulation of settlement of all WARN matters has been reached
and filed with the United States District Court and Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware by the WARN Act claimants and the
defendants.  The court approved the settlement on March 18, 2002.

As it applies to the Company, the settlement provides that either the
Company or Crescent Partnership was required to deposit into escrow
$500,000 for the benefit of the WARN Act claimants and, upon the
settlement becoming final, the Company will receive a complete release
for all WARN Act claims and any other claims in the suit other than
potential claims from those CBHS employees who have opted out of the
settlement.

It appears that a maximum of three such employees have opted out, but
none have made claims against the Company to date.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Rules Late Notice Not "Misleading or Confusing"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn a
California federal court's verdict granting summary judgment in favor
of Dun & Bradstreet Receivable Management Services, in a class action
filed by a consumer who refused to pay his phone bill.

Mr. Renick filed the suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging that the Company violated the
Federal Debt Collection Payment Act (FDCPA).  Mr. Renick refused to pay
his phone bill, saying the late notices that the Company sent telling
him to pay his bill were confusing and that they seemed to contradict
each other, thus violating the FDCPA.  

Mr. Renick received his first collection notice from Dun & Bradstreet
Receivable Management Services.  As required by the Federal Debt
Collection Payment Act (FDCPA), the notice informed Mr. Renick that he
had the right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days.  If
he, the debtor, did so, said the notice, the Company would provide him
with verification of the debt.  However, Mr. Renick did nothing.

Twenty days later, Mr. Renick received a second notice.  On its front,
the notice asked Mr. Renick to "(u)se the tear-off portion of the
letter . to send your payment today."  On the reverse side of the
second notice, the validation information required by the FDCPA was set
forth.  In capital letters these words were printed:  PROMPT PAYMENT IS
REQUESTED.  The notice also said that the debtor could "contact the
phone company with any questions about his phone account" but
instructed him to direct all inquiries regarding the validity of the
debt to Dun & Bradstreet.

Instead of doing nothing after receiving the second notice, Mr. Renick
filed the suit, arguing that the arrival of the second notice, only
twenty days after the first notice, coupled with the request for
"PROMPT PAYMENT" and the words "send your payment today," contained in
the second notice, misled him into abandoning his statutory right to
contest the debt within the 30-day period set forth in the first
notice.  He added that the additional instruction, in the second
notice, to call the phone company with questions about his account,
created confusion for him, and that he felt uncertain about whom to
contact to verify what he owed.

The Court granted summary judgment to the Company.  Mr. Renick and his
attorney O. Randolph Bragg, of the law firm Horowitz, Horowitz and
Associates, in Chicago, appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  

The three-judge panel that heard the appeal basically studied the
language upon which the plaintiff was relying, the format, style and
context in which that language appeared in the notice, and appeared to
come to a decision based upon how the law's tried and true reasonable
man would have viewed the message that was sent to Mr. Renick.

The appeals panel found that Dun & Bradstreet's second collection
notice did not violate the validation of debts provision of the FDCPA,
since the instruction to Mr. Renick "to use the tear-off portion of
this letter . to send your payment today" was in the same font as the
surrounding text and was not emphasized in any other way.  It was in
the nature of a request, rather than a demand, said the court, it
carried no sense of urgency.  Such a request, the Court decided did not
overshadow the language in the first notice from the defendant that the
alleged debtor has 30 days in which to dispute the debt.

Continuing to follow this line of reasoning, the Court wrote that,
similarly, the expression on the reverse side of the second notice,
"PROMPT PAYMENT IS REQUESTED," was in the same font as the accompanying
validation information.  It was followed by a statement informing Mr.
Renick that he had 30 days to challenge the debt's validity.  None of
the language on the reverse side of the second notice was expressed in
a way, the Court concluded, that conveyed a threat that could induce
Mr. Renick "to ignore his right to take 30 days to verify his debt and
act immediately."

The request for a prompt payment, therefore, "did not contradict the
admonition that the debtor has thirty days to contest the validity of
the debt" nor did the language "threaten or encourage the least
sophisticated debtor to waive his statutory right to challenge the
validity of the debt."

The Court addressed Mr. Renick's confusion, finding that the second
notice was not confusing about whom to contact as to the debt's
validity.  It held that the second notice made clear that the phone
company should be contacted only with questions pertaining to the phone
account on which the debt was incurred and that inquiries about
collection of the money owed should be directed to Dun & Bradstreet.

Based upon these findings the Court could not support a finding that
the Company used "false representation or deceptive means to
collect a debt."  Without such a finding, the Court could not find that
California's Unfair Business Practice Act had been violated, since the
state claim hinges on the plaintiff's rejected federal claim.  The
appeals panel affirmed the Federal Court's decision of summary judgment
for the defendant.


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GRIC Communications, Inc. is currently negotiating for the settlement
of a consolidated class action filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of
its officers and the underwriters of the Company's December 14,1999
initial public offering:

     (1) CIBC World Markets Corp.,

     (2) Prudential Securities Incorporated,

     (3) DB Alex.Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and

     (4) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.

The consolidated suit alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws, namely Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The suit also alleges claims against
the underwriter defendants under Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of
1933.

Citing several press articles, the suit alleges that the underwriter
defendants used improper methods in allocating shares in initial public
offerings, and claim the underwriter defendants entered into improper
commission agreements regarding aftermarket trading in the Company's
common stock purportedly issued pursuant to the registration statement
for the initial public offering.

The consolidated suit also alleges market manipulation claims against
the underwriter defendants based on the activities of their respective
analysts, who were allegedly compromised by conflicts of interest.

The suit is being coordinated with other nearly identical securities
class actions against other companies who have made their initial
public offerings under Judge Shira Scheindlin in the Southern District
of New York.  By order of the court, no responsive pleading is yet due.

The parties to the suit have discussed a proposal by which all of the
individual officers and directors of the issuer defendants would
be dismissed, without prejudice, all Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claims would be dismissed, without prejudice, and the actions against
the issuer defendants would be stayed, except for certain test cases.  
The Company believes that it would meet the conditions set by the most
recent proposal for dismissal of its officers and directors.  

More recently, however, the issuer defendants have participated in
mediation with a retired federal judge involving a global resolution of
the claims against the issuer defendants. However, there can be no
guarantee that the parties will be able to reach agreement on either a
partial dismissal or a global resolution of the claims involving the
issuer defendants.

The Company's management believes that the consolidated suit is without
merit and intend to defend against it vigorously. The Company does not
believe the outcome of this consolidated lawsuit will have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.


INTERFACE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
Interface Systems, Inc. filed an amended suit, right after a Michigan
federal court dismissed their original complaint.  

The suit arose from several cases commenced in June 2000 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, its President and CEO Robert A. Nero and Fiserv Correspondent
Services, Inc.

The suit alleges the defendants made false and misleading
representations by various defendants allegedly designed to inflate the
Company's stock price.  The complaints seek relief under the federal
securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased, held, or sold
shares of Company stock, and under various other causes of action.

In September 2000, the Company filed a motion to strike or dismiss for
failure to meet the certification requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The Company also filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to dismiss because
of improper venue, or in the alternative, motion to transfer the
lawsuits to the Eastern District of Michigan.

On July 27, 2001, the Court granted our motion to transfer the lawsuits
to the Eastern District of Michigan, and left the decision on the
pending motions to dismiss to the transferee court.  In April 2002, the
Michigan court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' class allegations
and federal securities law claims that purportedly arose under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On the same day, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint that:

     (1) consolidated the separate actions into one action;

     (2) added certain new plaintiffs;

     (3) withdrew Congressional Securities, Inc. (CSI) as a plaintiff;
         and

     (4) added claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent
         misrepresentation.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit.  However, no
assurance can be given about their outcome, and an adverse outcome
could significantly harm the Company's business and operating results.


NEW YORK: State Medical Care For Inmates, Juvenile Detainees In Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
After years of lawsuits and contention, the quality of private medical
and psychiatric care for current and former inmates of city jails and
of juvenile detention centers remains in sharp dispute, according to a
Newsday report.  Complaints, for example, that discharge planning of
inmates with psychiatric disabilities from the city's sprawling
corrections system are inadequate, are pending in a class action.

The suit is known as the "Brad H." case for an anonymous inmate who
is its lead plaintiff.  He is in his 40s, has a long history of
psychiatric treatment and has been in city jails 26 times without ever
receiving discharge planning, the lawsuit says.  The case, filed in
1999, challenged the city's practice of discharging Rikers Island
inmates with psychiatric disabilities at Queens Plaza with only a $3
MetroCard and $1.50 cash.

Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's administration tried to stave off the
Urban Justice Center and other nonprofit organizations that brought the
suit.  However, the state Appellate Division kept the case alive, and
in March of last year ordered it back to the Supreme Court for further
action.   

As a result, the city's Health and Hospital Corporation is scheduled
this week to take over court-ordered planning of mental health care for
those with psychiatric disabilities who are discharged from the city's
correction system.  Litigation of the class action is still pending.

Discharge planning is but a small fraction of the city's widespread
programs for medical and psychiatric care of jail inmates and juvenile
detainees.  PHS, Prison Health Services, a Tennessee-based for-profit
company recently took over the responsibility of jail health care under
a $300-million-plus contract.  The company already has drawn
allegations of short staffing and low morale from inmate advocates.  

Urban Justice Center staff attorney Heather Barr said, "We saw things
get really bad under St. Barnabas (Hospital in the Bronx) and were
hoping for things to get better under PHS . We have not seen anything
improve."

The city usually takes heed of such criticism. In New York City, the
path from criticism to lawsuit is a short one among the advocacy
groups.

Another worry for the city stemmed from "one of its own."  Comptroller
William Thompson Jr. recently blasted as "troubling" the performance of
EMSA Correctional Medical Services, an affiliate of the Prison Health
Services, which provides psychiatric services in the corrections area.
A review by his office in mid-April found the company failed to provide
required psychiatric services and quality assurance reports.  

In addition, Mr. Thompson charged that the company "misrepresented, in
supplied documents, critical data, such as how often it medicated
children."  The report further states one medical doctor was assigned
to treat hundreds of youths in Juvenile Justice's group facilities.  
Again, such reports without any sign of remedial action, are signals
that the advocates, like Urban Justice Center, will be taking action
(beginning with warnings and ending in court).

Mr. Thompson not only has criticized EMSA.  In a letter to the
Department of Juvenile Justice Commissioner Neil Hernandez, he cited as
a warning a series of critical reports that had been issued on PHS
services, and criticized as well the Department of Juvenile Justice,
which, he said, "has mishandled its oversight role and in doing so may
have placed children at risk."


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Scott + Scott Expands Class Period In Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC expanded the class in the securities class action
filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Peregrine Systems,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PRGN).  The class is expanded to include purchasers of
the Company's stock from July 21, 1999 through May 22, 2002, inclusive,
due to new facts that have come to light since the previous complaint
was filed.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of California, charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's business and financial condition thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.  The Company's former
outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, is also named as a defendant.

Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, the class was injured as a
result of defendants' misrepresentations, omissions and other
fraudulent conduct alleged.  Company stock began its decline on May 1,
2002 following the Company's April 30, 2002 announcement that the
release of the its fiscal fourth quarter and year end financial results
would be delayed pending the completion of an audit by new outside
auditor KPMG. Upon this announcement Company stock fell nearly 50% to
close at $3.45.

On May 6, 2002 the true facts regarding the Company's financial
condition, which were previously concealed or hidden, were revealed to
the public.  On this date, the Company shocked the market by announcing
that its Board of Directors had authorized an internal investigation
into accounting inaccuracies, totaling as much as $100 million, which
KPMG had brought to the attention of the audit committee.

Simultaneously, the Board of Directors announced that the Company's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer had both resigned all of their positions with the
Company. Following this announcement Company stock fell an additional
61% to close at $1.01.

As a result of defendants' misconduct, alleged, plaintiff and the class
have suffered substantial damages.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by Phone:
800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or drscott@scott-
scott.com or by E-mail: http://www.scott-scott.com


PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Release Verdict Royalty Owners Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc. is vigorously defending a class action
filed in 1993 in the 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas by two classes of royalty owners, one for each of the Company's
gathering systems connected to the Company's Satanta gas plant.

The case was relatively inactive for several years.  In early 2000, the
plaintiffs amended their pleadings to add claims regarding the field
compression installed by the Company in the 1990's.  The lawsuit now
has two material claims.  

First, the plaintiffs assert that the expenses related to the field
compression are a "cost of production" for which plaintiffs cannot be
charged their proportionate share under the applicable oil and gas
leases.  Second, the plaintiffs claim they are entitled to 100 percent
of the value of the helium extracted at the Company's Satanta gas
plant.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in their
entirety, it is possible that the Company's liability could reach $25
million, plus prejudgment interest. However, the Company believes it
has valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims, has paid the plaintiffs
properly under their respective oil and gas leases, and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

The Company believes the cost of the field compression is not a "cost
of production," but is rather an expense of transporting the gas to the
Company's Satanta gas plant for processing, where valuable hydrocarbon
liquids and helium are extracted from the gas.  The plaintiffs benefit
from such extractions and the Company believes that charging the
plaintiffs with their proportionate share of such transportation and
processing expenses is consistent with Kansas law.

The Company has also vigorously defended against plaintiffs' claims to
100 percent of the value of the helium extracted, and believes that in
accordance with applicable law, it has properly accounted to the
plaintiffs for their fractional royalty share of the helium under the
specified royalty clauses of the respective oil and gas leases.

The factual evidence in the case was presented to the 26th Judicial
District Court without a jury in December 2001.  The Court heard oral
arguments in April 2002, and although the Court has not yet entered a
judgment or findings, it could do so at any time.

The Company strongly denies the existence of any material underpayment
to plaintiffs and believes it presented strong evidence at trial to
support its positions.  The Company can not yet determine the amount of
damages, if any, payable if a ruling is made against the Company, but
does not expect that any such liability will have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position as a whole or on its
liquidity, capital resources or future results of operations.


RACING CHAMPIONS: Asks CA State Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Racing Champions South, Inc. asked a California State Court to dismiss
a class action filed against it and several other sports memorabilia
companies, on behalf of all US residents who purchased sports cards
manufactured, licensed, marketed, sold or distributed by any defendant
within a time period of up to four years.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants have violated the California
unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws by selling packs of
sports trading cards containing random assortments of varying values.  

The defendants moved for summary judgment in the suit, but the court
denied this motion in May 2001.  In September 2001, the California
Supreme Court denied permission to the defendants to appeal the denial
of their motion for summary judgment.  

On March 7,2002, the court certified a class on the plaintiff's claim
for false advertising under California's consumer protection laws but
declined to certify a class for the claims relating to unfair trade
practices.  

The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend its
position, although no assurance can be given as to the outcome of this
matter.


ROCHE HOLDING: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal
of a securities class action filed against Roche Holding Ltd. on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's ADRs during the period December 3, 1996
through May 20, 1999.

The lawsuit alleges that the trading prices for Company ADRs were
artificially inflated by false and/or misleading statements concerning
the competitive market for certain Roche products.  The truth became
known in May 1999 when the Company's primary subsidiary as well as a
Roche Holding officer pled guilty to participation in a price fixing
conspiracy in violation of US antitrust laws.

The court of appeals found that plaintiff adequately pled reliance upon
the Company's misrepresentations, and rejected the contention that the
Company is not amenable to personal jurisdiction in the United States
for claims filed by purchasers of ADRs.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press, Lewis S. Sandler or Mark A.
Strauss by Phone: 212-371-6600 by Fax: 212-751-2540 by E-mail:
ipress@kmslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kmslaw.com


TIFFANY GATE: Customers Sue After Eating Contaminated Greek Pasta Salad
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Gate Foods, Inc. faces a $11 million class action in Toronto,
Canada after nearly 700 people got sick after eating contaminated Greek
pasta salad, thestar.com reports.  The suit asserts claims for lost
time at work, pain and suffering, and negligence.

Nickie Turlos, a 28-year-old woman from Toronto, launched the suit
after becoming incapacitated by stomach cramps, debilitating diarrhea,
and vomiting, symptoms of shigellosis, an illness caused by shigella
bacteria.  Initial public health tests, however, did not reveal any
clues.  Inspectors plan to use DNA tests to look for dead shigella
bacteria, which wouldn't have appeared in the first tests, thestar.com
reports.

Company President Adolph Zarovinsky told thestar.com that he doesn't
know how contamination would occur in his plant.  "We still have no
proof, no confirmed link between our employees, or our salad, and the
outbreak," he said.

Lawyers say there is already enough proof for a lawsuit.

"Class action lawsuits are designed for cases just like this," said
Peter Merchant, one of the plaintiff's lawyers.  "The individual claims
may be too small to justify launching a lawsuit, but the claims are
legitimate ones, nonetheless."


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Plaintiff Testifies in First FL Suit V. Big Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lukacs, 77, is one of the estimated 500,000 to 700,000 sick
Florida smokers who are part of the first Florida statewide class
action against the nation's biggest tobacco companies.  So far, reports
the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the class has been successful.  The
jury told the nation's top five cigarette companies to pay a record-
setting $145 billion in punitive damages to the class.

The defendant companies appealed that verdict, setting off an appeals
process that will take years to conclude, and years before any of the
plaintiffs see any portion of that $145 billion.  However, Mr. Lukacs
does not have years. The cigarettes that he smoked caused cancer that
is expected to kill him before the end of the year.  He, therefore,
asked for his day in court, before the appeals process is finished,
before it reaches that point when each plaintiff comes before a jury
that will determine the amount of his/her portion of the money verdict.

Mr. Lukacs added, that if his day in court brings him victory, he would
put the verdict aside until the appeals process actually is complete.  
Last month, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami granted the dying
man his wish.

Mr. Lukacs, who is suing three of the tobacco companies, appeared
before the jury last Friday to tell his story, an emotional story that
brought jurors to tears.  First, in a videotape, he told them how, in
1943, as a Navy pilot training to fight the Nazis, he started smoking
because tobacco advertisements led him to believe "it was cool."  

Mr. Lukacs, later, in person, through a half-paralyzed mouth that holds
no tongue, explained that he was in court, suing the three companies
"so that other people won't have to be."  A laptop computer was placed
on the witness stand so he could speak his garbled words, but also type
his words, which then appeared on a six-foot screen before the jury.

Mr. Lukacs, a former Miami lawyer, contends that it was the tobacco
companies' misleading advertising and suppression of data linking
smoking to disease that led him to smoke the cigarettes that hooked
him, and caused the cancer that will kill him soon.  Mr. Lukacs gave
vivid testimony about the advance of the cancer that caused him to lose
his tongue and the bottom of his mouth to the still-advancing cancer
cells.

He talked about the cigarette advertising that glorified cigarettes,
and said that he always remembered one that said, "More doctors smoke
Chesterfields than any other brand."  When Philip Gerson, one of his
lawyers, asked whether he was influenced by the advertising, Mr. Lukacs
said, "It was supposed to look cool, to sell their products.  I thought
it was cool.  So, I guess I was (influenced by the advertising)."

Mr. Gerson also asked Mr. Lukacs when he began to know that smoking
causes cancer.  "That would be about the time the surgeon general made
public comments that cigarette smoking caused certain illnesses."  
Although, at first, it wasn't said to cause cancer.  They referred to
pulmonary problems.  Then a later report from the surgeon general
mentioned it caused lung cancer.

In the late 1960s, as his children entered their teens and began to
experiment with cigarettes, Mr. Lukacs, struggled through his
insatiable appetite for cigarettes, telling his children if they didn't
start, he would stop.  He stopped in 1971, cold turkey, when he was
smoking three packs a day.

The tobacco companies, on the other hand, contend that they should not
be held responsible for Mr. Lukacs, because he made the choice to
smoke.  Their attorneys pointed out that Mr. Lukacs admitted in his
deposition that he ate fried foods, ate grilled red meat and lived near
the polluted "rust belt" of western Pennsylvania, all environmental
factors that could have caused the cancer.  

The tobacco lawyers also talked to the jury about "declining risk," a
theory that the longer one goes without smoking, the better one's
chances of not getting sick.

If this jury agrees with Mr. Lukacs, it will have to determine how much
money cigarette makers Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris and the
Liggett Group should pay as punishment for their actions (punitive
damages) and also determine how much to compensate Mr. Lukacs for his
pain and suffering (compensatory damages).  

It was the Lucky Strikes, the Chesterfields and Marlboro brand
cigarettes that these three companies made and Mr. Lukacs smoked, until
he quit cold turkey, in 1971.


US LIQUIDS: Trial in Consolidated Securities Suit Set For November 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action against US Liquids,
Inc. has been set for November 25, 2002 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The consolidated suit charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors, with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock in the Company's March 1999 public offering and violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period beginning on May 12, 1998 and
ending on August 25, 1999.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose allegedly material
information regarding the operations of the Company's Detroit facility
and the Company's financial condition in the prospectus relating to the
March 1999 stock offering and in certain other public filings and
announcements made by the Company.

During 2000, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint.  In January 2001, the court entered an Order of
Partial Dismissal which dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiffs
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

The deadline for filing an amended complaint has passed and the
plaintiffs have advised the court that, while preserving all of their
rights regarding the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, they will proceed on the current complaint as affected by
the order of partial dismissal.  Accordingly, the lawsuit is proceeding
only with respect to the claims asserted under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.  

In September 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to
certify as a class all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Company common stock in connection with the March 1999 stock offering.  
As part of their motion, the plaintiffs designated five individuals to
serve as representatives of the proposed class.

On April 30, 2002, the court held that the plaintiffs had failed to
demonstrate that any of the five individuals designated to serve as
class representatives had the requisite standing to serve in such role
and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The court's ruling does, however, permit the plaintiffs to file another
motion for class certification if, during discovery, the plaintiffs
find evidence that any of the designated individuals or any other
potential class representative has standing to pursue the claims
asserted by the plaintiffs under Sections 11 or 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act.


VAN TRAN: Disabled Commuters Sue for ADA, Rehabilitation Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Van Tran, Tucson, Arizona's transportation service for the disabled
faces a class action filed in the United States District Court in
Arizona, for allegedly turning down about 14,000 requests for rides
every year.  The suit alleges that the service:

     (1) denied requests for next-day rides;

     (2) picked up riders either significantly early or late;

     (3) provided excessively long rides; and

     (4) refused to schedule rides at times they were requested.

Users "can't depend on Van Tran the way they can depend on Sun Tran,"
Steve Palevitz, a staff attorney for the Arizona Center for Disability
Law told the Tucson Citizen.  "It just dramatically impacts people with
disabilities' ability to be mainstreamed in society. Transportation is
key."

Mr. Palevitz added that Van Tran riders are entitled to transportation
service comparable to the city bus service under the Americans With
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  "That's obviously not the
case when 14,000 Van Tran requests are denied each year and you don't
have 14,000 bus service requests denied each year," he said.  "The
bottom line is, there is just not enough money put into this system to
ensure there are enough vehicles and enough drivers."

A city performance audit of Van Tran service in August found serious
problems with the system, according to the Tucson Citizen.  Mr.
Palevitz cited the report as saying almost 25 percent of riders had
been refused service in the month preceding the survey, and more than
40 percent had been refused service in the six months before the
survey.

Michael House, an attorney for the city, said he is reviewing the
lawsuit.  "The city is implementing recommendations made by the
consultants regarding paratransit services," he told the Tucson
Citizen.  "As a result, we are not in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. That's all I can tell you."

The suit does not seek monetary compensation but seeks a judgment
stating the city and Van Tran are violating the Americans With
Disabilities Act and an injunction to prevent future violations.  

"Our goal is to achieve a system that is comparable to the bus service
so that people with disabilities can get to where they need to go just
as people without disabilities can get to where they need to go," Mr.
Palevitz said.


VENTURE CATALYST: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Suit Over Speer Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Venture Catalyst Incorporated labeled "without merit the class action
pending in the Superior Court in San Diego County California seeking
primarily to enjoin the merger of the Company with and Speer Casino
Marketing, Inc.

Speer Casino Marketing, Inc. is wholly owned by L. Donald Speer, II,
the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and
Chairman of the Board.  The complaint, which was filed by Jay Fink, a
purported Company stockholder, names the Company, and a majority of the
directors (including Mr. Speer) as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders and that the consideration to be
paid to its public shareholders in the merger is inadequate.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action certification, a
declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in breach of the
defendants' fiduciary duties and an injunction from proceeding with or
closing the proposed merger.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the action.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action against Vitria Technology,
Inc. has been coordinated along with more than 300 nearly identical
suits against other Companies under Judge Schira Scheindlin of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated suit arose from several suits commenced in November
2001 against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.  The plaintiffs allege
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws because the
Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of,
the IPO underwriters.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court beginning in January
2001 against numerous public companies that first sold their common
stock publicly since the mid-1990s.  In August 2001, all of these IPO-
related lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

Judge Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on
September 7, 2001, at which time she ordered, among other things, that
the time for all defendants to respond to any complaint be postponed
until further order of the court. Thus, neither the Company nor any of
its officers or directors has been required to answer the complaint,
and no discovery has been served.

In accordance with Judge Scheindlin's orders at further status
conferences in March and April 2002, appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel
filed amended, consolidated complaints in these IPO-related lawsuits on
April 19, 2002.  However, Judge Scheindlin does not expect the
defendants to file motions to dismiss the amended, consolidated
complaints until at least summer 2002.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously.


WASHINGTON: System Change On Hold As State Appeals State Judge's Order
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's attorney general's office appealed a Whatcom County
judge's order requiring sweeping changes in the state's foster-care
system, the Associated Press Newswires reported recently.  The issues
about Washington's foster care system were brought before the court in
a class action, filed by attorney Timothy Farris of Bellingham,
claiming violations of the constitutional rights of Washington's foster
children.  These issues were tried before a jury, whose verdict
provided the foundation for the judge's recommendations.

Judge David Nichols issued the order, almost six months after a Whatcom
Superior Court jury found the Department of Social and Health Services
(DSHS) had violated the constitutional rights of 3,500 children, each
of whom had been in at least three foster homes.  Within hours, the
state appealed the decision by Judge Nichols, who has been working,
since the December verdict, to come up with a remedy for the system.  
About 10,000 children live in foster homes across the state.

Judge Nichols' order called for more foster homes, better mental-health
care and other changes.  He did not say what penalties DSHS might face
if the changes are not made.  Mr. Farris said, "these are long-needed
reforms for thousands of foster kids now and thousands who will be
coming in, in the future."

Tom Wendel, an assistant attorney general, said the state has appealed
the jury verdict and asked a state appeals court to put Judge Nichols'
injunction on hold until the legal questions are sorted out.   The
appeals court could decide what to do about the injunction within a
week, Mr. Wendel said.  Obeying the judge's order would probably cost
the state millions of dollars, he said  but conceded no exact estimate
was available.

In his 13-page ruling, Judge Nichols ordered DSHS to:

     (1) increase the number of foster homes by 500, to about 6,800.  
         If DSHS fails to do so, it would have to "obtain or rent or
         secure appropriate facilities or group homes to assure
         compliance;"

     (2) provide physical and mental-health assessments within 30 days
         of each child's entry into foster care, and provide treatment
         for any problems;

     (3) further assess a child's needs within two weeks of his or her
         third placement;

     (4) place siblings together unless one sibling poses a danger to
         another;

     (5) avoid moving foster children into different school in the
         middle of a term and do a better job of working with school
         officials to help foster children;

     (6) provide additional training and support to foster parents, as
         well as a system of respite care;

     (7) provide foster parents with complete information about a child
         before the child is placed in the home; and

     (8) do not keep foster children in "unsafe and clearly
         inappropriate placements," such as DSHS offices and detention
         facilities, or in homes where there is someone with a history
         of abusive behavior.

To ensure compliance, Judge Nichols ordered DSHS to conduct studies,
the first to be submitted to him no later than next January 31, 2003.  
He also ordered the department to maintain a central record tracking
every allegation of a child's being molested or harmed in a foster
home.  The department would also have to document every time a child is
required to sleep in a state office because no foster home is
available.

Mr. Farris filed in lawsuit on behalf of 13 foster children in April
1998, alleging the state had not fulfilled its obligation to provide
them with stable homes.  The state eventually agreed to a $1.3 million
settlement with the original 13 children, or about $100,000 for each
plaintiff.

However, Mr. Farris also succeeded in getting the case certified as a
class action, which put the entire system on trial and resulted in the
December verdict.  "One of the big concerns is children being bounced
around from home to home," said Mr. Farris, who noted that one foster
child had been in 43 different homes.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
dismissed the federal securities class action against beleaguered
telecommunications company XO Communications, Inc, Reuters reports.

The lawsuit alleged that certain of the Company's directors and
officers had violated federal securities laws and that the directors
and certain other parties had breached their fiduciary responsibilities
in connection with its efforts to raise funding and implement a related
financial restructuring.

Judge Leonie Brinkena informed the Company of her decision.  In a
statement, the Company said, "We are pleased with the court's decision
and view the dismissal of the suit as consistent with the Company's
assertion that our disclosures were both proper and timely."

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

CMS ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against CMS Energy Corporation (NYSE:CMS), alleging it
improperly recorded at least $4.4 billion from sham "round trip" trades
of electricity.  

These transactions were of no economic value since the Company would
sell a given amount of electrical energy at a certain price to another
company on the wholesale electricity market, while simultaneously, the
other company would sell back to CMS an identical amount of electrical
energy at the same price.

CMS would allegedly record the entire selling price as revenue, even
though there was no actual profit to the Company, thereby misleading
investors about the amount of revenue generated by CMS, the volume of
its business, and also the liquidity of the wholesale electric market.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and three of its current or
former senior officers and charges them with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Late in the day on May 10, 2002, the facts about the Company's
misconduct began to emerge with the Company's announcement that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had asked the Company to
provide information about its "round trip" trades pursuant to an
informal inquiry.  

As a result of this disclosure, the market price of CMS stock fell. On
May 10, 2002, a Friday, the stock closed at $19.29. On the following
Monday, May 13, 2002, the stock closed at $16.05

The Company finally acknowledged on May 15, 2002 that it had engaged in
"round trip" trades over an 18-month period (May 2000 through mid-
January 2002) and had improperly recognized $4.4 billion in revenues
from such trades.  The next day, the Company announced the resignation
of Tamela W. Pallas, the head of its trading unit.  Upon this
disclosure, the price of CMS stock dropped further, closing at $15.25.

Thereafter on May 24, 2002, the Company announced that it would restate
its financial statements for 2000 and 2001 to eliminate the impact of
the "round trip" electricity trades that artificially inflated its
revenue more than $4.4 billion.  At that time, the Company also
revealed that William T. McCormick Jr. was stepping down as its
chairman and chief executive.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
(888-4-POMLAW) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.pomlaw.com


CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP commences a securities class action against
Concord Camera Corp. (Nasdaq:LENS), claiming that the Company misled
investors about its business and financial condition, in the US
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The suit seeks
damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all
investors who bought Company securities between January 18, 2001
through June 22, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company, Harlan Press and Ira B. Lampert
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements, which
failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Manager 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


FLAG TELECOM: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the shares of FLAG Telecom Holdings,
Ltd. (NASDAQ: FTHLQ) between February 16, 2000 and February 13, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
Company's initial public offering, and 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 February 16, 2000 and February
13, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company shares.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus was materially
false and misleading because, among other things, it contained
statements which led investors to believe that there was a huge demand
for the Company's Atlantic cable system, when, in fact, the Company had
been marketing its Atlantic cable system with minimal success.

Additionally, throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
the Company was experiencing diminishing revenue growth.  The suit
alleges that in order to create the impression that the Company was
continuing to experience growth, it engaged in a series of reciprocal
transactions with certain competitors for the purchase and sale of dark
fiber optic cable, the so-called dark fiber swap.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these transactions, the
Company artificially inflated its operating results and materially
misrepresented its financial results at all relevant times.

For more details, contact 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 Email: flagcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


MIRANT CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Mirant
Corporation, (NYSE: MIR) between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements between January
19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.  The suit charges that the Company reaped
illegal profits in California by artificially manipulating energy
prices through a variety of improper tactics that 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
private lawsuits.

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:

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

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

     (3) 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 Nikole Davenport by Mail: 2900 Promenade
II,1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia by Phone: 888-873-3999
(toll-free) by E-mail: nmd@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com.  


MIRANT CORPORATION: Dyer & Shuman Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Shuman, LLP lodged a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
purchasers of Mirant Corporation (NYSE: MIR) publicly traded securities
during the period between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company reaped illegal profits in
California by artificially manipulating energy prices through a variety
of improper tactics.  The complaint alleges that 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.

The complaint further alleges that 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:

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

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

     (3) 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.

Defendants' class period financial statements were therefore materially
overstated and failed to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

For more details, contact Jeffrey A. Berens by Mail: 801 East 17th
Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417 by Phone: 303-861-3003 or 800-711-6483 or
by Fax: 303-830-6920


MIRANT CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Mirant Corporation (NYSE: MIR)
common stock between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002 inclusive,
against the Company 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 issuing financial statements which included revenue and
earnings which were materially inflated because defendants failed to
disclose that Mirant had failed to establish reserves to provide for
the return of revenue illegally obtained as a result of its fraudulent
activity in the California energy market, as well as possible state and
federal fines in connection with those fraudulent activities.

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


MIRANT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Mirant Corporation (NYSE: MIR)
publicly traded securities during the period between January 19, 2001
and May 6, 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company reaped illegal profits in
California by artificially manipulating energy prices through a variety
of improper tactics.  The suit alleges that 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.

The suit further alleges that 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:

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

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

     (3) 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, alleges the complaint, defendants' class period financial
statements were materially overstated, and failed to comply with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Peregrine
Systems, Inc. (NASD: PRGN) and certain of its senior officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock from July 21, 1999 through May 22, 2002,
inclusive.

The Company disclosed, on May 3, 2002, that sales revenue recognized
during fiscal 2001 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2002, "may
have been subsequently written off."  Wolf Popper initially filed a
related action on May 15, 2002, alleging that statements made during
fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 were materially false and misleading.

Subsequently, on May 23, 2002, the Company announced that they would
restate their financial results for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and the
first three quarters of fiscal 2002.  Wolf Popper has filed an expanded
complaint alleging that revenue was recognized in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles, or "GAAP" throughout the
class period.

The expanded complaint also includes new allegations concerning
statements made by the Company and the defendants about fiscal year
2000 results, which were not included in the complaint filed on May 15,
2002.

During the class period, the Company acquired several companies,
including Harbinger, Inc. and Remedy Corporation.  Shareholders of
Harbinger and Remedy who exchanged their shares for shares of Peregrine
common stock are members of the proposed class.

For more details, contact James A. Harrod by Mail: 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-759-4600 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or
877-370-7704 by E-Mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's
Website:  http://www.wolfpopper.com


RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Fruchter & Twersky Lodges Securities Suit in WI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Rayovac Corporation (NYSE: ROV)
between April 26, 2001 and September 19, 2001, inclusive against
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Kenneth V. Biller,

     (2) Kent J. Hussey,

     (3) David A. Jones,

     (4) Scott A. Schoen,

     (5) Stephen P. Shanesy,

     (6) Thomas R. Shepard,

     (7) Randall J. Steward,

     (8) Warren C. Smith, Jr. and

     (9) Merrell M. Tomlin

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between April 26, 2001 and September 19, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements, including a materially
false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its Secondary Offering of shares to the public,
regarding the demand for the Company's products and the Company's
future prospects.

Specifically, the suit alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for its
         products and in order to stimulate demand and create the
         impression that the Company was performing according to
         analyst expectations, Rayovac was extending generous credit
         terms to customers in order to induce them to purchase
         additional products, thereby pulling sales in from the future.
         As a result, Rayovac created the appearance of earnings
         growth, when defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded that
         future sales would be negatively impacted by the
         aforementioned practices;

     (2) that the Company's expansion in Latin America was the result
         of aggressive sales practices whereby the Company extended
         generous payment terms and induced customers to take
         additional unneeded inventory; and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis
         for their statements that the Company would grow by 8-9% in
         the third and fourth quarter of 2001.

On September 20, 2001, before the market opened for trading, the
Company issued a press release announcing that its fiscal fourth
quarter results would be negatively impacted by a purported slowdown in
battery sales in its U.S. and Latin American markets.

As a result, contrary to defendants' bullish Class Period statements,
Company earnings for the quarter would be flat to down slightly from
the same period for the previous year.

The market's reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive,
with shares of the Company's common stock falling more than 23% to a
class period low of $12.74 per share on almost eight times the normal
trading volume.

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


SEITEL 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 common stock of
Seitel, Inc. (NYSE: SEI) between May 5, 2000 and May 3, 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 the Company's common stock.

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

     (1) by issuing false and misleading financial statements in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP);

     (2) by improperly recognizing revenue and net income during fiscal
         years 2000 and 2001 and

     (3) by prematurely recording revenue on data licensing contracts.

On April 1, 2002, the Company announced that it was restating its
financial results for the year 2000 and the first three quarters of
2001. The restatement reduced reported revenue by 15% in 2000 and 30%
for the first three quarters of 2001.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Jayne Nykolyn by Phone: 1-
800-721-3900 by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.zsz.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  * * *