CAR_Public/020606.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Thursday, June 6, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 111

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Faces Charges By Enron Creditors Of Shielding Funds
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Bishops Draft Rules Due To Rash of Sexual Abuse Suits
CENTRA SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY

DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Securities Suits in NY
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
E.PIPHANY INC.: Securities Suits Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
E*TRADE GROUP: OH Court Grants Class Certification To Consumer Suit

ENERGY LITIGATION: Power Traders Sued On Behalf Of Washington Consumers
FLORIDA: Miami-Dade County's Public Housing Slowly Being Integrated
HANDSPRING INC.: Securities Suits Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
LOOKSMART.COM: Change In Business Strategy Spurs Fraud Suit in CA Court
LOUISIANA: New Orleans Residents Sue Over Superfund Site's Hazards

LUXO CORPORATION: Recalls 18,300 Portable Lamps For Skin Burn Hazard
MASSACHUSETTS: Parents Challenge Lynn's Voluntary Desegregation Plan
MPOWER HOLDING: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in NY
NETWORK ENGINES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NEW JERSEY: 3,500 Camden Residents File Suit Over Contaminated Water

OHIO: More Join Investment Fraud Suit V. Insurance Agent, Radio Station
ONVIA.COM: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SHELL OIL: Sale Of New Gasoline Halted Due To Problem-Causing Additive
TERRORIST ATTACK: Civil Groups File Racial Bias Suits V. Four Airlines
VIXEL CORPORATION: Sued For Violations of Federal Securities Laws in NY

WCI COMMUNITIES: Plaintiffs Fail To File Appeal in Home Builders Suit

* Suits Alleging Labor Standards Act Violations Steadily Increasing

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AIRGATE PCS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in S.D. TX
EDISON SCHOOLS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GREAT ATLANTIC: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ

GREAT ATLANTIC: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
GREAT ATLANTIC: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D TX
LANTRONIX INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in S.D. CA

RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in W.D. WI
RELIANT RESOURCES: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
                            
                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss the amended securities
class action pending against the Company and its directors and
executive officers.

The suit was commenced in June 2000, seeking compensatory damages on
the basis of allegations that the Company's amended registration
statement dated November 4, 1998 was inaccurate and misleading
concerning the manner in which the Company recognized ceded insurance
commission income.  The suit alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Court dismissed the suit last year, but allowed the plaintiffs to
file an amended suit.  The plaintiffs then filed an amended suit on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November
5, 1998 and August 13, 1999.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and is
vigorously building a defense against the action.


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities suits against Akamai Technologies, Inc.
filed an amended consolidated suit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Ten securities suits were initially filed between July and August 2001
against the Company, several of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's October 28, 1999 initial public offering
of common stock.  The suits were filed allegedly on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock during different time periods,
all beginning on October 28, 1999 and ending on various dates.

The complaints were similar and alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on
the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed compensation
in connection with the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated suit reiterated in one pleading the allegations
contained in the previously filed separate actions, and defines the
alleged class period as October 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously oppose it.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Faces Charges By Enron Creditors Of Shielding Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Creditors of Enron Corporation complained recently that Enron's former
auditor Arthur Andersen, LLP is illegally reducing the exposure of its
partners to financial liability related to Enron's collapse, Associated
Press Newswires reports.

Although Andersen is a limited liability partnership, its 1,700
partners are responsible for routine debt obligations, such as leases,
which Andersen has been paying down, thus limiting what creditors can
collect, the creditors committee wrote in a bankruptcy court filing.  
An Andersen spokesman said the motion has no merit and the firm will
fight it in court, the Houston Chronicle stated.

Enron's creditors have repeatedly said they intend to press their
claims against Andersen because of Enron's collapse.  Earlier this
year, Andersen failed to reach a settlement with Enron's creditors and
the plaintiffs in two class actions, partially because the creditors
and lawyers for the class action plaintiffs could not agree how to
divide the settlement.

The creditors are suggesting the payments Andersen is now making are
"fraudulent conveyances," a bankruptcy term for transactions by an
insolvent company that are harmful to creditors.  Andersen has not
filed for bankruptcy and insists it does not plan to do so.

On May 16, 2002, US Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez granted the
creditors committee's request for a broad subpoena of Andersen's
financial information.  The accounting firm did not object to the
request.  A week later, however, the firm asked the bankruptcy court to
quash the subpoena, and Gonzalez will hear arguments on the issue
Wednesday.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Bishops Draft Rules Due To Rash of Sexual Abuse Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have produced a draft
report that combines self-regulation and cooperation with legal
authorities, in the wake of the numerous class actions brought against
Roman Catholic priests. The plaintiffs, now grown, who claim sexual
abuse was inflicted upon them as minors are bringing class actions
against dioceses accusing them of covering up the sexual abuses,
according to CNN.com/US.  What is presented here is still but a draft
report but does reflect the drift of the Bishops' thinking that sex
abuses brought to light will be swiftly acted upon by the Church.

The report primarily concerns disciplining clergymen accused of
sexually abusing children. It also outlines rules recommending
dismissal in certain cases.  The rules include the defrocking of
priests who abuse minors in the future as well as those who have
molested more than one child previously.

Some of the proposals for disciplinary action:

     (1) a clergyman's diocese will report to authorities any
         accusation of sexual abuse of a minor and will cooperate in
         any investigation;

     (2) if a complaint is affirmed by investigation, officials in the
         clergyman's diocese will promptly relieve the alleged offender
         of his ministerial powers;

     (3) if the plan is implemented, clergymen are to be on notice that
         any act of sexual abuse from then on will bring about a
         request for laicization or revocation of ministerial powers.  
         Such action still would permit the church worker lay
         privileges, such as assisting priests;

     (4) regarding acts against a minor previous to adoption of the
         plan, a request for laicization will be issued if a clergyman
         is found to be a pedophile or has committed more than one act
         of sexual abuse of a minor;

In a move to quell complaints that church officials moved some priests
from parish to parish despite abuse allegations, the report calls for
review of a priest's record before he is transferred.  Bishops are to
consider the draft report prepared by a panel of the US Conference of
Catholic Bishops when they meet next year at a conference in Dallas,
Texas.

The draft report does not completely endorse a zero-tolerance policy.
It would allow priests and bishops to retain their rank if the clerics
have only one offense, have not been diagnosed as pedophiles and have
had a clean record since the single offense.

The proposal relies on the Pope's guidance to trust in "conversion" of
those who have sinned.  Nevertheless, a diocesan review board must
examine and decide a priest's ministerial status.


CENTRA SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Centra Software, Inc.
filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and the managing underwriters of its initial
public offering (IPO).

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000, asserts claims 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.

The suit alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO in February
2000, the underwriters received undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for allocating shares to them and also agreed to
allocate shares to certain customers in exchange for the agreement of
those customers to purchase additional shares in the after-market at
pre-determined prices.

The complaint asserts that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for the offering were materially false and misleading due to
their failure to disclose these alleged arrangements.

To date, the court has not established a time for responding to the
complaint.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations, which it believes lack merit.


DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Digimarc Corporation faces a consolidated securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York charging the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain underwriters of its initial public offering with
violations of federal securities laws.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering violated securities laws by failing
to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
Company's initial public offering registration statement.

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  Although no
assurance can be given that this matter will be resolved favorably, the
Company believes that the resolution of these lawsuits will not have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the securities suits
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against DJ Orthopedics, Inc., the underwriters of its
November 15 initial public offering (IPO) and:

     (1) Leslie H. Cross, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Cyril Talbot III, Senior Vice President, Finance, Chief
         Financial Officer, and Secretary, and

     (3) Charles T. Orsatti, Chairman of our Board of Directors,

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's IPO on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock.

The complaints seek unspecified damages and allege that defendants
violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by,
among other things, misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose material
facts in connection with the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for the IPO.

The Company intends to continue defending vigorously against any new
suits that may arise out of the litigation.


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ Orthopedics, Inc. faces an amended consolidated securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The suit was initially filed against the Company, the underwriters of
its November 15 initial public offering (IPO) and:

     (1) Leslie H. Cross, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Cyril Talbot III, Senior Vice President, Finance, Chief
         Financial Officer, and Secretary, and

     (3) Charles T. Orsatti, Chairman of our Board of Directors,

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's IPO on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock.

In February 2002, the court consolidated the suits into a single
action, and appointed Oracle Partners, LP as lead plaintiff.  On
May 3, 2002, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
complaint, which alleges the same causes of action and adds some of the
Company's outside directors as defendants, namely:

     (i) Mitchell J. Blutt, MD,

    (ii) Kirby L. Cramer, and

   (iii) Damion E. Wicker, MD

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the action vigorously.  However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will succeed in defending or settling this action.


E.PIPHANY INC.: Securities Suits Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions pending against E.Piphany, Inc. have been
coordinated for pre-trial purposes with similar actions against 300
other companies who have made their initial public offerings under
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The first suit against the Company was commenced in July 2001, alleging
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all
defendants, a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the individual defendants, and violations of Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the underwriters.  The suit seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between September 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

One additional lawsuit was filed subsequently which contains
allegations substantially identical to those in the first suit.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these securities
lawsuits and will defend itself vigorously.


E*TRADE GROUP: OH Court Grants Class Certification To Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony O. Calabrese of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
granted class certification to a lawsuit against E*TRADE Group, Inc.,
allowing the case to proceed on behalf of all Ohio residents that had
an E*TRADE when its computer systems crashed.  E*TRADE has produced
documents in the case indicating there may be as many as 99,000
potential customers in the class.

The suit, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in Ohio by the law firm of
Webster & Webster LLP, alleges that the Company knowingly expanded its
customer base so fast that it was unable to handle the projected volume
of trades, causing its computers to crash on a number of occasions.

The Company has admitted in its Annual Reports that its growth has
posed problems.  According to one report on file with the SEC, The
rapid growth in the use of our services has strained our ability to
adequately expand technologically. As we acquire new equipment and
applications quickly, we have less time and ability to test and
validate hardware and software, which could lead to performance
problems."

In another report, the Company admitted, "If our systems or any other
systems in the trading process slow down significantly or fail even for
a short time, our customers would suffer delays in trading, causing
substantial losses and possibly subjecting us to claims for such losses
or to litigation claiming fraud or negligence."

Despite this, according to the suit, the Company continued to
aggressively solicit new customers.  Its Annual Reports state that the
Company spent over a billion dollars on advertising over the past few
years, but only a fraction of that amount on computer upgrades and
support.

The effect of the Company's rapid expansion was dramatically
illustrated during the first week of February, 1999, when its on-line
trading systems crashed three times in one week, and its back-up
systems were unable to handle the flow of e-mails and telephone calls.

Similar suits were filed in New York and California, but have been
unsuccessful in obtaining class action status. The Ohio suit was filed
three years ago, and has already been up to the Court of Appeals and
back.

For more details, contact David B. Webster of Webster & Webster LLP by
Phone: 1-216-566-1144, ext. 200


ENERGY LITIGATION: Power Traders Sued On Behalf Of Washington Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer rights lawyer Steve Berman, a Seattle lawyer, requests $1
billion damages from some of the nation's largest power companies,
claiming they made billions from artificially created power shortages
during last year's power crunch, Associated Press Newswires reported
recently.  

The suit, which seeks class action status, is pending in San Francisco
Superior Court, to represent thousands of ratepayers in 21 of
Washington's 28 public utility districts.  The suit asks the court to
force the defendants, who so far number 13, to return profits
"wrongfully amassed" since January 2001and make restitution to the
ratepayers.

According to the complaint, the defendants own or control 19 gas-fired
power-generating plants in California and conspired to create a cartel
to withhold power from the market, creating artificial shortages and
causing price spikes.  It also contends the defendants engaged in
transactions designed to inflate the cost of electricity.

The impact was crippling on Public Utility Districts (PUDs) in the
Northwest which were forced to buy power on the spot market.  "Most of
the PUDs tried to absorb the rate increases the defendants engineered,
but simply ran out of money," Mr. Berman said.  "They had no choice but
to go to the ratepayers with the higher rates" while the power brokers
posted "obscenely huge profits."

The thirteen defendants include:

     (1) Enron Energy Services, Houston, Texas,

     (2) Reliant Energy Services, Houston, Texas,

     (3) PG&E Corporation, Houston, Texas,

     (4) Dynegy Power Marketing, Houston, Texas,

     (5) Williams Energy Marketing and Trading, Tulsa, Oklahoma,

     (6) Sempra Energy Resources of San Diego, California, and

     (7) Duke Energy Trading of Charlotte, North Carolina.

Spokesmen for Williams, Duke, Reliant and Dynegy have previously termed
such accusations false.  Spokesmen for the other named defendants were
not immediately reachable.

Earlier this month in Washington, DC, the nation's top energy regulator
said Enron Corporation intentionally misled California energy officials
about power trades in order to make more money during the state's
electricity crunch.

However, Pat Wood, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, said it was too soon to know if Enron or other energy
companies manipulated the California energy market.  The commission
began investigating possible price manipulation in February.

While most of the activity alleged in Mr. Berman's lawsuit occurred in
California, it had significant impact in the Northwest, Mr. Berman
said, citing published reports that inflated electricity rates cost
Washington state 43,000 jobs and state ratepayers $1.7 billion.


FLORIDA: Miami-Dade County's Public Housing Slowly Being Integrated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning, Gail Williams thought a long-sought plan to
desegregate Miami-Dade housing was hopeless.  However, four years into
her job as chief coordinator for the agency charged with helping the
county reach integration, she sees progress, the Miami Herald reports.  
It started with a class action in 1998.

The Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence (HOPE) started in
1998, with the settlement of a class action, out of which came the
so-called Adker consent decree, named for the late Overtown community
leader.  HOPE's partnership with the Miami-Dade Housing Agency started
with the approval of that consent decree.

Gail Williams runs HOPE.  Its workers have encouraged more than 1,000
black, Hispanic and white residents to move into neighborhoods
dominated by people who don't look like them.  "Our mission is to
encourage (them) to accept desegregative housing opportunities," Ms.
Williams said.  In the fair housing world, that translates into a
participant moving to a neighborhood with less than 65 percent of his
or her race or ethnic group.

Desegregation, in this instance, started with a list. As part of the
settlement of the class action and inception of the consent decree, the
Housing Agency agreed to create a special list of blacks who qualified
for public housing, dating back more than 50 years.  Approximately,
11,000 people made the list.  Tenants were positioned based on the date
they moved into public housing.  The No. 1 slot went to someone who
applied in 1946.

The people are screened by the housing agency to make sure they are
still eligible for housing subsidies.  Those who qualify are sent to
HOPE for counseling, along with non-blacks who want to live in one of
the county's more than 10,400 public housing units.

Ms. Williams says integration is coming, albeit slowly.  Since August
1999, when the first fair-housing center opened, about 1,065 have
attended group counseling sessions.  Participants learn tips about how
to search for a home, how to interact with a prospective landlord and
how to spot signs of potential abuse or discrimination.

Kim and Anthony Ancrum participated in the counseling sessions.  They
are parents of six children, ages two months to 13.  Previously, they
lived in public housing in South Miami-Dade and became part of the
Adker class settlement.  In March, they used a voucher to move into a
four bedroom, two-bath home in Leisure City.  

"It's made such a difference," Kim Ancrum said.  "We were all piled up
on each other, and there was no space for the children.  When we came
here, there was such a change in them.  A burden came off me."

Of the 832 clients from the Adker pool who have gone through
counseling, 146 have moved into non-black neighborhoods.  Another 116
opted to relocate into predominantly black areas.  The others are
either still looking, or the vouchers expired before they could locate
housing.

While those numbers may seem small, they outpace the number of
Hispanics and whites who have agreed to relocate to public housing,
largely inhabited by blacks.   So far, 233 non-blacks have attended
counseling.  Of those, 76 accepted the units that were offered to them.  
However, 106 declined offers, and the others are still looking.

However, Ms. Williams said there is reason to be optimistic.  "The
number of desegregative moves outpaces the others," she said.  "They
are utilizing vouchers and helping to integrate this county.  A year
ago, it was not that way . The numbers aren't great, but now we feel
better."


HANDSPRING INC.: Securities Suits Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions pending against Handspring, Inc. and
certain of its officers have been consolidated with similar actions
against more than 300 companies who made their initial public offerings
in the past two years, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Schira Scheindlin.

The suits against the Company assert that the prospectus for the
Company's June 20, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose
certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.  The
complaints allege claims against the Company and two of our officers
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  The suits also name as defendants the underwriters
for the Company's initial public offering.

The court has adjourned indefinitely the time to respond to the
complaints pending resolution of major issues in all cases, so neither
the Company nor its officers have responded to the complaints.


LOOKSMART.COM: Change In Business Strategy Spurs Fraud Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet search service LookSmart.com faces a class action filed in San
Francisco Superior Court, charging the Company with breach of contract
and violations of California business codes for changing its fee
structure for roughly 90,000 small-business customers, News.com
reports.  

Early last month, the Company changed its strategy regarding paid
listings.  The Company changed from operating a Web directory, like
Yahoo, to a pay-for-performance search service like Overture.  Before,
the company had charged marketers a one-time fee to be considered for a
directory listing in search results. Now it requires marketers to pay
15 cents every time a Web surfer clicks on their listing in search
results.

"The biggest complaint was that LookSmart did this without any
warning," said Chris Sherman, associate editor of industry newsletter
SearchEngineWatch.com. "The perception in the Webmaster community is
that LookSmart didn't handle it very well, and the class action
reflects that."

Jeffrey Fazio, the plaintiff's attorney, told News.com that, "This
action arises out of the defendant's dissemination of false and
misleading statements about the cost of its services."  The suit
affects directory listing customers dating back to May 13, 1998.

The suit states the Company "represented that a `one-time payment'
would satisfy all costs associated with its services.LookSmart breached
that agreement when in 2002 it required additional payments for their
services in the form of a new `pay-per-click' program."

The Company would not comment for the story, News.com stated.  However,
according to a press release a month after its policy change, the
Company signed on about 8,000 businesses for its new small-business
listings. This is less than 10 percent of its former small-business
customers, according to a recent Securities and Exchange Commission
filing.

Though the suit represents only one plaintiff, Mr. Fazio said he is
getting flooded with requests from interested parties.


LOUISIANA: New Orleans Residents Sue Over Superfund Site's Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents who live in the vicinity of the 95-acre former Superfund site
on Agriculture Street, in New Orleans, have filed a class action in
Civil District Court, claiming the former dump site, containing lead,
arsenic and carcinogenic hydrocarbons, has been turned by defendants
into a development that they fear may be hazardous to their health and
hard to escape, because their property has dropped in value, The Times-
Picayune recently reported.

The suit seeks damages and free comprehensive, ongoing medical checks
for residents and could eventually involve thousands of people and
millions of dollars, said Linda Harang, who represents residents of the
Press Park subdivision at the site.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) the city of New Orleans,

     (2) Orleans Parish School Board and

     (3) the Housing Authority of New Orleans

Earlier, the city sided with residents who wanted the government to
relocate them before the cleanup, challenging the plans of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the site.  However, two years
ago, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by US
District Judge Marcel Livaudais Jr. that federal law did not permit
such a suit.  Now the city is a defendant.

Four weeks after the EPA completed a $22 million cleanup of the site,
residents say the issue is far from over.  The EPA paid the Army Corps
of Engineers to excavate up to two feet of contaminated soil on the
site, cover the land with a mat, add new clean fill and top it with
grass.  The agency pledged to check the site again in five years to
make sure the remedial work has stood the test of time and determine
whether it can be taken off the national priorities or Superfund list,
which would mean that the site is no longer one of the EPA's top
concerns.

Although EPA regional spokeswoman Cynthia Fanning of Dallas said the
cleanup project "is fully protective of human health and the
environment," the residents don't agree.  Joshua Allen, a 19-year-old
Web site developer is circulating a petition demanding that the
government relocate residents of the more than 400 homes in the
community who want to leave and also close the reopened Robert R. Moton
Elementary School for good.

Mr. Allen's petition, which he will forward this week to city, state
and federal officials, includes comments from dozen of people who have
cancer and believe the pollution caused it.  Past health surveys,
however, have not definitively linked specific illnesses to the
pollution, nor has a study released last week.

In a federally commissioned health assessment, Louisiana's Health
Department commented on a local report prepared by the Deep South
Center for Environmental Justice at Xavier University, saying, "Even
though the findings of this survey indicate that there are illnesses in
the community, we cannot determine if the illnesses at the site are
occurring at a rate higher than is expected for a community not
residing on a Superfund site."

The state health department found an elevated level of breast cancer
among women at the site, but could not link it to the pollution, said
Dianne Dugas, the department's environmental health screening manager.

Based on that finding, however, as well as the high level of concern in
the community, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a
federal entity that is part of the US Department of Health and Human
Services, decided three years ago to arrange a further screening of
residents and check for a variety of medical problems, Ms. Dugas said.
Those results are now being reviewed.

The new findings were released last Tuesday by the Association of
Occupational and Environmental Clinics, a nonprofit organization in
Washington that entered into an agreement with the Agency for Toxic
substances to do the project at a cost of about $80,000.

Katherine Kirkland, the Association's executive director, said no
direct link was found between health problems and the pollution on the
landfill.  In environmental medicine, she said, such a connection "is
almost impossible to make" because of the many factors involved.  For
example, there also was pollution from motor vehicles at the site.  
Yet, she said of the landfill, "We know it did not help their health."


LUXO CORPORATION: Recalls 18,300 Portable Lamps For Skin Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Luxo Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 18,300 portable
fluorescent lamps.  The ballast (the electrical part located in the arm
of the lamp) in these lamps can overheat, short-circuit, and melt the
insulating cover of the ballast causing the lamp to fail and posing a
skin burn hazard to consumers.  The Company has received 10 reports of
these lamps overheating and shorting out the fixture. No injuries have
been reported.
        
The lamps are 18-watt portable fluorescent lamps that have a black
plastic housing and mount to a desk or sit on a base. Model PS355 and
PS360 with serial numbers between 198076 and 244871 and between
35500001 and 36003256 are included in the recall. The PS355 model has a
34-inch swing arm and the PS360 has a 19-inch swing arm. The serial
number and "MADE IN TAIWAN" can be found on a silver label located on
the back of the light bulb cover. The lamps have also been sold under
the names "Big Dipper" and "Little Dipper."   
        
Office furniture distributors and dealers nationwide sold these
lamps from January 2000 through February 2002 for between $155 and
$170.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-222-5896 between 8
am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.luxous.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Parents Challenge Lynn's Voluntary Desegregation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents in the town of Lynn, Massachusetts filed a suit in federal
court, challenging the town's voluntary desegregation plan, under which
transfers of students outside their own neighborhoods can be denied if
they disturb a racial balance, the Associated Press reports.

In the late 80s, the town set up the plan to comply with the state's
voluntary racial imbalance law.  The law requires public school
district to desegregate schools with a minority population of more than
50%.  Districts who implement such plan are rewarded with additional
funding for educational services or building projects.

The parents allege that the plan is an unconstitutional use of race to
keep families from sending children to schools of their choice, AP
reports.  One parent, Meta Stinson, testified that she asked school
administrators to transfer her 13-year-old daughter, Angelica, from her
neighborhood school to Pickering Middle School because she was
concerned about discipline problems at the neighborhood school.  
However, the administrators refused, saying the school wasn't in her
district.  She also said that the other reason the administrators gave
her in refusing her daughter's transfer was " because she's white."

Chester Darling, whose Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional
Rights represents the families, told AP, Lynn's policy arbitrarily
prohibits families from sending their children to schools of their
choice.  "They have a variety of reasons for wanting to transfer, but
they can't because of the kid's color," he said.  "We're beyond that in
our society."

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has intervened as a friend of the court on
the side of the city and state.  "The evidence is going to show that
there are substantial benefits to all students of all races to have
plans like this," said Dennis Parker, NAACP assistant counsel.

The trial is being closely watched by 21 other cities and towns in
Massachusetts and others across the country who have also voluntarily
desegregated their school systems, according to the Associated Press.  
"This is the first time in this country's history that the validity of
a voluntary school assignment plan is on trial," said Assistant
Attorney General Richard Cole.


MPOWER HOLDING: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Mpower
Holdings, Inc. filed an appeal in the United States Second Circuit
Court of Appeals of a New York federal court's decision dismissing the
suit.

The suit was commenced in September 2000 against the Company and its
chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York.  The suit was later amended and
consolidated.

The consolidated suit seeks to recover damages for alleged violations
by the Company of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10(b)-5
thereunder and section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The suit also
seeks to recover damages against several of the Company's officers and
former members of its board of directors in addition to the CEO, and
also names various underwriters as defendants in the action.

On February 11, 2002, the federal court issued its decision and order
dismissing the suit, and the plaintiffs filed their appeal in March
2002,

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.  The Company and
the individual defendant officers and former board members have denied
any wrongdoing and will vigorously contest the suit.  


NETWORK ENGINES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Network Engines, Inc.
filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Lawrence A. Genovesi, its current Chairman and former
         Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Douglas G. Bryant, its Chief Financial Officer and Vice
         President of Administration,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock between July 13, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
generally alleges that the underwriter defendants violated the federal
securities laws by conspiring and agreeing to raise and increase the
compensation received by the underwriter defendants by agreeing with
some recipients of an allocation of IPO stock that the recipients would
purchase shares of securities in the after-market of the IPO at pre-
determined price levels designed to maintain, distort and/or inflate
the price of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket.

The suit also alleges that the underwriter defendants received
undisclosed and excessive brokerage commissions and that, as a
consequence, the underwriter defendants successfully increased investor
interest in the manipulated IPO securities and increased their
individual and collective underwritings, compensation and revenues.

The suit further alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling securities pursuant to the IPO
without disclosing to investors that the underwriter defendants in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The Company is in the process of reviewing this suit and intends to
respond in a timely manner.  The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this suit and its ultimate effect, if any, on its financial
condition, however the Company's defense against these claims could
result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial
resources.


NEW JERSEY: 3,500 Camden Residents File Suit Over Contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 3,500 residents of Camden, New Jersey recently have joined
in a lawsuit against the City, neighboring Pennsauken and several
companies that they say were responsible for contaminated water
reaching the taps of two-thirds of the city's residents over a 24-year
period, Associated Press Newswires reports.  

Keith A. Walker, spokesman for Camden Citizens Against Contaminated
Water, said the group filed the lawsuit in Camden Superior Court.  The
citizens group, which is seeking class-action certification, wants the
defendants to provide medical monitoring for Camden residents south of
the Cooper River, who received water from the Puchack Well Field in
Pennsauken.  The suit also asks for reimbursement of water bills.

Mr. Walker says the lawsuit does not ask damages.  However, if medical
tests find people have been harmed by contaminated water, they could
seek damages as part of another lawsuit.  More than 50,000 people could
be eligible to join the present lawsuit.

The state and federal government are planning to study cancer and
birth-defect rates for people who received water from the well field,
which closed in 1998 when it was declared a Superfund site.

The lawsuit brought by the citizens group claims that Camden's city-
owned water utility did not heed a 1991 state warning about the well
field and did not tell residents about the possibility of contamination
there.

Camden City Attorney Dennis Kielle said the city does not expect to be
held liable in the case, although he would not say that the water was
not contaminated.  "The city did not knowingly deliver contaminated
water to city residents," he said.

Several companies are accused of polluting the well field, including
Hess Petroleum and U.S. Steel


OHIO: More Join Investment Fraud Suit V. Insurance Agent, Radio Station
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nine more people are joining in a lawsuit alleging the plaintiffs were
defrauded by Cincinnati insurance agent George Fiorini.  Cincinnati
radio station WSAI has also been added as defendant in the case, The
Cincinnati Post reports.

Mildred Finch filed a private lawsuit against Mr. Fiorini in Hamilton
County Common Pleas Court in January.  She also filed a federal class
action in February.  Ms. Finch, more recently, has added eight
Cincinnati area residents and one Butler, Kentucky resident to her
common pleas lawsuit.

William Singer, attorney for the plaintiffs, said reports of Ms.
Finch's suit resulted in calls from several people who allege they were
bilked by Mr. Fiorini after investing in his so-called "Ten Percent
Income Plus Plan," which promised monthly income and 10 percent
interest.  The latest plaintiffs are among dozens who say they invested
money with Mr. Fiorini but have not received promised payments.

Plaintiffs added to the Finch lawsuit are:

     (1) Joseph A. Bruemmer of Norwood,

     (2) George D. Grainger of Butler, Kentucky,

     (3) Donald E. Leber of Cincinnati,

     (4) John T. McPherson of Terrace Park,

     (5) Alvin H. and Marian Muckerheide of Cincinnati,

     (6) Margaret L. Myers of Cincinnati,

     (7) John B. and Jean C, Nie of Cincinnati and

     (8) Albert and Dorothy Solzsmon of Cincinnati


Mr. Singer said WSAI was included as a defendant in the amended
complaint because radio and TV personality Bob Braun, now deceased,
worked for the station and endorsed Fiorini's plan  on the air.  He
said several people called Fiorini after hearing Mr. Braun talk about
the investment plan on the radio station.


Also added to the lawsuit was Standard Life Insurance Company of
Indiana as defendant.  The lawsuit contends that Mr. Fiorini was a
Standard agent and convinced customers to buy Standard policies in the
course of marketing his plan.


ONVIA.COM: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities suits against Onvia.com, Inc. filed a
consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Glenn S. Ballman,

     (2) Mark T. Calvert, and

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), the Company's lead
         underwriter

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of the Company between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a
registration statement and prospectus that contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The suit allege that the registration statement and prospectus were
false and misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (i) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Company shares in
         the IPO in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions;
         and

    (ii) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under which
         the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those
         customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase
         Company shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these charges.  
The results of litigation proceedings are inherently unpredictable,
however, and the Company is unable to provide assurance regarding the
outcome of these complaints or possible damages that may be incurred.


SHELL OIL: Sale Of New Gasoline Halted Due To Problem-Causing Additive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shell gasoline containing a new additive was pulled from pumps at 150
stations after Shell Oil Products USA received the news that gasoline
with a similar additive was causing problems with fuel pumps and gauges
in cars in Canada. The problem was so acute a class action was filed
against Shell Canada, according to a report by The Lexington Herald
Leader.

Shell had chosen Central Kentucky as the place to begin testing the
additive, which the company said gives five more miles a tankful by
reducing engine friction, thereby calculated to save some drivers about
a tank of gas a year.  The company expected to roll out the new gas
nationwide later this spring.

Lexington, Massachusetts Shell stations are no longer selling the new
gasoline amid concerns that the formula could be causing fuel pumps in
some vehicles to fail.   Reports from Canada led to alertness about
certain indications. Low-fuel indicator lights in the affected cars,
mostly Daimler-Chrysler vehicles, began to blink even though the tank
was full, and the needles on the gauges swung back and forth at random.
In some cases, fuel pumps clogged after heat caused the additive to gum
up. Tim O'Leary, spokesman for Shell's US division said that there had
been "a spike in fuel-pump failures in Lexington."

Mr. O'Leary said that "The additive package used in Lexington is not
the one used in Canada, but it has some of the same components."  Paul
Cleaver, general manager of Freedom Dodge, one of the largest
DaimlerChrysler dealers in Lexington, said the dealership has seen an
increase in fuel pump problems.


TERRORIST ATTACK: Civil Groups File Racial Bias Suits V. Four Airlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Four major US airlines faces several class actions from civil rights
groups, accusing the airlines of racial discrimination, after they took
five men off post-September 11 flights simply because flight crew and
other passengers had suspicions they were Middle Eastern, according to
a Reuters report.  The suits name as defendants:

     (1) United Airlines,

     (2) Northwest Airlines,

     (3) American Airlines, and

     (4) Continental Airlines

"The treatment was good old-fashioned racial discrimination, plain and
simple," lawyer Kelli Evans, who is representing investment banker
Arshad Chowdhury, told Reuters. Mr. Chowdhury was ejected from a flight
because the pilot thought the man's Bangladeshi name sounded like one
on his watch list.

"They were not only discriminated against, they were humiliated on the
basis of the color of their skin," he said.   Mr. Evan's law firm is
also representing a US Secret Service agent who also alleges he was
discriminated against while flying.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee (ADC) are also initiating suits on behalf of
five men, four U.S. citizens and one legal resident.  The suits ask the
court to find that the airlines violated the plaintiffs' civil rights
and for the airlines to implement measures to prevent future
discrimination.

A Northwest Airlines spokeswoman said the pilot had received
conflicting security information on Chowdhury, and that he was not
ejected because of his ethnic background.  "Northwest is satisfied with
our employees acting in accordance with FAA security directives and
federal regulations," Mary Beth Schubert told Reuters.

The government has denied it is engaging in racial profiling, noting
that tougher security measures since September 11 target passengers for
myriad reasons, including those who buy one-way tickets or use cash to
pay for expensive airline seats.

American Airlines said they were disappointed in the lawsuit against
them. Security precautions were the primary concern of any flight crew,
the firm said in a statement.  Spokesmen at both United and Continental
declined to comment, Reuters reports.


VIXEL CORPORATION: Sued For Violations of Federal Securities Laws in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation faces a securities class action filed in November
2001 in the United States District Court in the Southern District of
New York against two of the Company's officers and directors and
certain underwriters who participated in the Company's initial public
offering in late 1999.

The suit alleges violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, on
behalf of persons who purchased Company stock during the period October
1, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The Company labeled the suit "without merit" and stated its intent
to defend itself vigorously in this matter, in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


WCI COMMUNITIES: Plaintiffs Fail To File Appeal in Home Builders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against WCI Communities, Inc. failed to
file an appeal within the thirty-day deadline set by the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The court earlier
refused to grant class certification for the suit, which also named the
Company's subsidiary, WCI Realty, Inc., as defendant.

The suit arose out of a preferred builder program under which
plaintiffs purchased vacant lots in Pelican Landing, Florida and then
contracted with a builder of their choice to construct a residence on
their lots.

In consideration of the extensive costs incurred by the Company
associated with the marketing, sales and advertising of the community
for the benefit of the builders who participated in the program, these
builders were required to pay a marketing fee to WCI Realty based on a
percentage of the construction cost of the home.

The plaintiffs asserted that the Company had an obligation to disclose
to them that the preferred builder would pay a marketing fee.  The
plaintiffs have demanded unspecified money damages and have alleged,
among other things, violation of the federal Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA).

In March 2002, the court denied plaintiffs' preliminary motion for
class certification, but gave the plaintiffs thirty days to appeal this
ruling.

The Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and
intends to continue vigorously defending this action.


* Suits Alleging Labor Standards Act Violations Steadily Increasing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The numbers of so-called "collective actions" brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the federal statute that sets wage and hour rules,
now exceeds the number of class actions alleging job discrimination,
the Chicago Tribune reports.

The stakes in these actions for unpaid overtime pay can be high.  Last
year alone, SBC Communications Inc.'s SBC Pacific Bell settled a suit
for $35 million.  Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles settled a suit
for $20.2 million, while Bank of America Corp. settled a suit for $22
million.

A state-court jury returned a $90 million verdict against a Farmers
Insurance Group unit for failing to pay overtime to 2,400 of its claims
adjuster in the state (Farmers is appealing).  The Company also faces
claims in federal district court in Portland, Oregon, on behalf of its
adjusters nationwide.

This year, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is defending overtime cases in 28
states.  Minolta Business Solutions Inc. was sued in federal district
court in New York by technicians seeking to represent people who
service copy machines.

Overtime rules have been on the books since the 1930s, generally
requiring payment of time-and-a-half to employees working more than 40
hours a week.  Laws in many states contain additional protections.  The
federal law, however, carves out dozens of exemptions for payment of
overtime to certain workers, including those deemed "managerial,"
"administrative" or "professional."

Plaintiffs' lawyers say companies improperly categorize employees' jobs
as falling under the overtime exemptions in order to save on labor
costs.  "If you walk into a lot of chain restaurants, you would be
astonished at how many `managers' they have, most of whom are waiting
on tables," said Richard Seymour, a Washington attorney who represents
workers.

Farmers Insurance classified its claims adjusters as "administrators,"
when in fact plaintiffs maintained they were more like production
workers.  This year, a New Jersey state appeals court found that Pepsi
Bottling Group Inc. had improperly failed to pay overtime to delivery-
truck drivers and customer representatives in New Jersey.  The company
had classified these employees as outside sales people, another
exempted category under the overtime law.

Besides misclassification claims, the most common overtime complaint is
that companies require employees to work off the clock.  One lawsuit
filed against Wal-Mart in a New York state court, alleges that store
employees were routinely told to punch out when the store closed and
then required to keep working.  William Wertz, a spokesman for Wal-
Mart, says the company denies the allegations in the lawsuits.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AIRGATE PCS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of AirGate
PCS, Inc. (Nasdaq:PCSA) pursuant to or traceable to a secondary public
offering on or about December 14, 2001.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against the Company and:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663,
561-712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE:BMY) common
stock between May 16, 2001 and April 1, 2002, in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that throughout the class period
defendants engaged in a systematic program of moving sales from future
periods in a process of what is sometimes called "channel stuffing."

On April 1, 2002, defendants admitted that the Company had overloaded
US wholesalers with products by offering them incentives. Defendants
further admitted that US wholesalers were holding approximately $1
billion in excess inventory and that the de-stocking of this inventory
would materially adversely affect sales and earnings in 2002. In
response to the April 1, 2002 announcement, the price of the Company's
stock dropped over 5%.

For more details, contact Jennifer Haas by Mail: 800-889-3701 by E-
mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


DYNEGY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, claiming that
Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) misled shareholders about its business and
financial condition.

Plaintiff seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and/or the Securities Act of 1933)
on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's securities between
April 17, 2001 through April 25, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Texas-based Company:

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

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

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

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


EDISON SCHOOLS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action, claiming that Edison Schools Inc. (Nasdaq:EDSN) and three
top officers pumped up company stock price by improperly reporting
revenue.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all investors who
bought Company stock from November 11, 1999 through May 14, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company, a private operator of public
schools, misled investors by releasing false financial information
about its earnings.  The complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, the Company issued numerous quarterly press releases and
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting its
supposedly growing revenue stream.

These figures were materially false and misleading, the complaint says,
because the Company improperly recognized as revenue money paid for
teacher salaries, student transportation, and utility bills. In fact,
the company never received the money, because it was remitted directly
to its "clients," namely local school districts and charter school
boards.

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

On May 14, 2002, the Company announced it had been the subject of a SEC
investigation and has entered into a settlement with the SEC, under
which it agreed to reclassify revenue the company reported for numerous
quarters.  That day, Company stock closed at $2.94 per share, down
significantly from a class period high of $36.75.

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


GREAT ATLANTIC: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company, Inc. (NYSE: GAP) from November 15, 2001 and May 28, 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
defendants issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and
annual financial performance and filed reports confirming such
performance with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

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

     (1) the Company was employing improper accounting practices
         regarding the recognition of vendor allowances and the
         accounting of inventory in certain of its regions for fiscal
         year 2001 in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles. As a result, the Company's operating results were
         materially misrepresented and overstated; and

     (2) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On May 28, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it would delay the filing of its annual report with the
SEC while it conducted an accounting review which will most likely
result in a charge to earnings. The accounting review will focus on the
appropriate timing for the recognition of vendor allowances and the
accounting of inventory in certain of the Company's regions for fiscal
year 2001.

The Company further noted that a substantial portion of any charge it
will take will reverse credits which were recognized prematurely as
reductions of cost of merchandise sold, and that portion will therefore
be recognized in periods subsequent to fiscal 2001 as reductions of
cost of merchandise sold.

Following this disclosure, Company stock fell $4.03 per share, or
approximately 16%, to close on May 28, 2002 at $21.070 per share.

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


GREAT ATLANTIC: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.
(NYSE: GAP) publicly traded securities during the period between
November 15, 2001 and May 28, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Christian W.E. Haub,

     (2) Elizabeth Culligan,

     (3) Fred Corrado,

     (4) Mitchell Goldstein and

     (5) Kenneth A. Uhl

The defendants allegedly 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 November 15, 2001 and May 28, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

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

     (i) the Company was employing improper accounting practices
         regarding the recognition of vendor allowances and the
         accounting of inventory in certain of its regions for fiscal
         year 2001 in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles. As a result, the Company's operating results were
         materially misrepresented and overstated; and

    (ii) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On May 28, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it would delay the filing of its annual report with the
SEC while it conducted an accounting review which will most likely
result in a charge to earnings.  The accounting review will focus on
the appropriate timing for the recognition of vendor allowances and the
accounting of inventory in certain of the Company's regions for fiscal
year 2001.

The Company further noted that a substantial portion of any charge it
will take will reverse credits which were recognized prematurely as
reductions of cost of merchandise sold, and that portion will therefore
be recognized in periods subsequent to fiscal 2001 as reductions of
cost of merchandise sold.

Following this disclosure, the Company's stock fell $4.03 per share, or
approximately 16%, to close on May 28, 2002 at $21.070 per share.

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


GREAT ATLANTIC: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (NYSE: GAP) between November 15, 2001 and May
28, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey against the Company and:

     (1) Christian W.E. Haub,

     (2) Elizabeth Culligan,

     (3) Fred Corrado,

     (4) Mitchell Goldstein and

     (5) Kenneth A. Uhl

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 November 15, 2001 and May 28, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  

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

     (i) the Company was employing improper accounting practices
         regarding the recognition of vendor allowances and the
         accounting of inventory in certain of its regions for fiscal
         year 2001 in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles. As a result, the Company's operating results were
         materially misrepresented and overstated; and

    (ii) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On May 28, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it would delay the filing of its annual report with the
SEC while it conducted an accounting review which will most likely
result in a charge to earnings.  The accounting review will focus on
the appropriate timing for the recognition of vendor allowances and the
accounting of inventory in certain of the Company's regions for fiscal
year 2001.

The Company further noted that a substantial portion of any charge it
will take will reverse credits which were recognized prematurely as
reductions of cost of merchandise sold, and that portion will therefore
be recognized in periods subsequent to fiscal 2001 as reductions of
cost of merchandise sold.

Following this disclosure, Company stock fell $4.03 per share, or
approximately 16%, to close on May 28, 2002 at $21.070 per share.

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


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Halliburton Company
(NYSE: HAL) between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002 inclusive.  The suit
is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

The suit charges that the Company violated Section 10(b) 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 July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, beginning in the fourth quarter of 1998,
unbeknownst to the public, the Company materially changed its revenue
recognition policy to recognize revenue on claims and change orders
relating to cost-overruns which its clients had not approved.  
Previously, the Company would only recognize revenue on approved change
orders or claims.

The suit further alleges that the alteration of the Company's
accounting policy and financial results reported as a result thereof
throughout the class period were materially false and misleading and in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because,
among other things, the accounting change was not disclosed to the
public or supported as the preferred accounting treatment in the
Company's financial statements and because collection of the claims or
change orders was not probable and the amounts involved could not be
estimated reliably.

As a result of these violations of GAAP, according to the complaint,
the Company's quarterly and annual earnings press releases and
financial reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) throughout the class period were materially false and misleading
and artificially inflated the Company's reported revenues and earnings,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

On May 28, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the SEC is conducting an investigation
into its accounting for cost overruns.  In reaction to the press
release, the price of the Company's common stock dropped by 3.3% in one
day on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


LANTRONIX INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed an amended securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers or acquirers of the shares of Lantronix, Inc. (Nasdaq:
LTRXE) securities between April 25, 2001 and May 30, 2002, inclusive.  

The amended complaint extends the Class Period to May 30, 2002, and
contains further details of the fraud. The amended complaint also adds
the Company's independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company, certain of its officers
and directors and its auditor violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the Company's financial results during the class
period.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company's financial results were
overstated due to improper revenue recognition practices.  The suit
also alleges that defendants engaged in such fraud in order to pursue
its growth by acquisition strategy through funds raised in a public
secondary public offering, and to enable certain defendants to sell
their holdings of Company stock at artificially inflated prices.

On February 6, 2002, the Company issued a press release disclosing that
it would retroactively record a charge to its 1Q 2002 financial
results, miss its forecasts for 2Q 2002, and lower its outlook for 3Q
2002 and fiscal 2002, due to a purported change in its method of
accounting for revenue.  On May 4, 2002, the Company terminated the
employment of chief financial officer Steven Cotton.

On May 15, 2002, the Company additionally disclosed that it was
engaging in an internal review and that the review may result in
amendments to previously issued financial information.  On May 30,
2002, the Company further disclosed that its fiscal 2001 and 2002
financial results would be restated, that its third quarter 2002
earnings would be reduced, that an interim CEO was named, that
defendants Fred Thiel and Bernhard Bruscha resigned from the Board of
Directors, and that the Company received notification from Nasdaq that
it did not meet the filing requirements for continued listing on the
Nasdaq National Market.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct,
plaintiff and other members of the class suffered damages.

For more details, contact Elizabeth P. Lin by Phone: 800-437-7918 by E-
mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wyca.com


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRGN),
the Company's former auditor Arthur Andersen LLP, and two of the
Company's former officers on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of the Company during the period from July 21, 1999 and May
3, 2002, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act by, among other things, improperly
accounting for over $100 million by booking revenue from indirect sales
channels, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP), thereby leading to a material overstatement of the Company's
revenues.

On May 6, 2002, the Company announced that it would be forced to take a
$100 million restatement, "for periods in fiscal 2002 and prior" to
account for "certain transactions involving revenue recognition
irregularities," and that, as a result, the Company's CEO and CFO would
both resign.  That day, the stock, which had traded as high as $38.25
during the class period, plunged to close at $0.89 a share. This
announcement followed the Company's replacement of its long time
auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP with KPMG.

Thereafter, on May 23, 2002, the Company announced that it would
restate financials back to fiscal 2000.  It also announced that the
Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) was conducting an investigation
into its accounting practices.

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


RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in W.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Rayovac Corporation
(NYSE:ROV) securities between April 26, 2001 and September 19, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin, against 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

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.

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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Reliant Resources, Inc.
(NYSE:RRI) securities between May 1, 2001 and May 10, 2002, inclusive.  
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the Company and:

     (1) R. Steve Letbetter,

     (2) Steven W. Naeve and

     (3) Mary P. Riciardello

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Leo Desmond by Mail: 2161 Palm Beach Lakes
Blvd., Suite 204, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 by Phone: 888-337-6663
by E-mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or by visiting the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.  


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Universal Access Global Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:UAXS) claiming that the
Company misled investors about its business and financial condition.  
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois-Eastern Division, on behalf of all investors who
bought Company securities between May 10, 2001 and April 24, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Chicago-based Company failed to adequately
disclose their adoption of a new business model as well as the
associated material risks facing the Company as a result.  In addition,
the complaint alleges that the Company issued financial statements,
which violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) by
improperly recording revenue for contingent contracts prior to the
receipt of payment.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company improperly
recognized revenue for "capacity swaps" with other communications
companies, which had no real business purpose other than to
artificially inflate the Company's reported revenues.

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


                              *********

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  * * *