CAR_Public/020611.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Tuesday, June 11, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 114

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Suit Over Diet Drug Proceeds in LA Federal Court
ADVANCED LIGHTING: Trial in Securities Suit Set For December 2002 in OH
ADVANCED LIGHTING: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits in N.D. OH
AUSTRALIA: Failure to Clear Bushlands Prompts Shoalhaven Residents Suit
BALTIMORE GAS: MD Court Schedules For 2003 Briefing For Certification

CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
CANADA: War Veteran Central to Pension Fight Dies Before Suit Ends
CANADIAN NATIONAL: MI Residents File Suit Over To Train Derailment
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CATHOLIC CHURCH: US Bishops Break Off Talks With Abuse Victims Group

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Abuse Victims Sue Over Settlements' Secrecy Provisions
CONSTELLATION POWER: Plaintiff Asked To Explain Non-Service of Suits
CORNELL COMPANIES: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in TX
DOW CHEMICAL: Faces Suit After Taking Out Life Insurance On Workers
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES: ReplayTV Users File Suit For Right To Skip Ads

GLOBIX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in NY
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: EEOC Files Suit For Alleged Age Discrimination
INFOGRAMES INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's Dismissal of Columbine Suit
JAKARTA: Crash Survivors, Relatives of Victims File Suit V. Railway
KANSAS: Court Grants Certification To Natural Gas Explosion Lawsuit

KENTUCKY: Berry Settlement On Hold As 18th Victim Enters Sex Abuse Suit
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Offers Speedier Payments For Defective Home Siding
LUMENIS LTD.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY
PEROT SYSTEMS: La Mesa Mayor Files Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit
REMEDYTEMP INC.: Readying Vigorous Defense V. Fraud Suit in CA Court

SRI SURGICAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in M.D. FL
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Smokers' Lawyers Ask Court To Uphold $145B Verdict
UTAH: Suit Challenges State's Right To 100% Medicaid Reimbursement
VERISIGN INC.: Building Strong Defense V. Securities Suits in N.D. CA
WARNECO GROUP: NY Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations

                       New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLIED DIGITAL: Glancy Binkow Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. FL
APPLIED DIGITAL: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CMS ENERGY: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CMS ENERGY: Schoengold & Sporn Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
DYNEGY INC.: Wolf Popper Files Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX

EXELON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Alfred Yates Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MUTUAL RISK: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
NEOPHARM INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
RELIANT RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
TEXTRON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in RI
                             
                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Suit Over Diet Drug Proceeds in LA Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A New Orleans woman is the latest to sue the makers of the diet drug
Meridia, claiming it raised her blood pressure and made her sick,
reported Associated Press Newswires recently.   The plaintiff's
attorney asks that the lawsuit, filed recently in US District Court in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, be given class action status, thereby covering
other Louisiana users of the drug who may have had similar problems.

A spokeswoman for Abbott Laboratories of Illinois, the primary maker
and seller of Meridia, said more than nine million people worldwide use
the drug, which shows that it is safe and effective.

Meridia, which was approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration
in 1997, is also known as Sibutramine Hydrochloride Monohydrate and is
prescribed by doctors to help treat obesity.  The drug is supposed to
work by affecting appetite control centers in the brain, Abbott
Laboratories says.  The consumer group Public Citizen has waged a
battle with the FDA over Meridia's use and advertising since its
approval in 1997.

Lena McClellan, the plaintiff, says that the lawsuit asks that the drug
be taken off the market and seeks an unspecified amount of money,
claiming Abbott Laboratories used false and misleading advertising
about the drug and its side effects.

The lawsuit also names as defendants Knoll Pharmaceutical of Illinois,
BASF Corp. of Delaware and its foreign component, as well as
GlaxoSmithKline of Pennsylvania, because they helped produce and market
Meridia.

An Indiana woman and a Pennsylvania woman sued Abbott and others in
federal court in Illinois in March, making claims similar to Ms.
McClellan's.

Ms. McClellan's attorney Walter Dumas said pretrial motions and
settlement talks in Ms. McClellan's lawsuit will likely be handled
along with the Illinois lawsuit and any others that may have been filed
around the country.  In cases where similar federal class-action
lawsuits are filed in different areas, a three-judge panel often is
appointed to handle pretrial and settlement matters, Mr. Dumas said.  
He added that if the cases go to trial, they are returned to the courts
where the lawsuits were filed.


ADVANCED LIGHTING: Trial in Securities Suit Set For December 2002 in OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action pending against Advanced Lighting
Technologies, Inc. has been set for December 3,2002 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The consolidated suit was initially commenced in April and May 1999, by
certain alleged shareholders of the Company on behalf of themselves and
purported classes consisting of Company shareholders, other than the
defendants and their affiliates, who purchased stock during the period
from December 30, 1997 through September 30, 1998 or various portions
thereof.

The consolidated suit names as defendants the Company and its Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The suit alleges generally that
certain disclosures attributed to the Company contained misstatements
and omissions alleged to be violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

The suit includes claims for "fraud on the market" arising from alleged
misrepresentations and omissions with respect to the Company's
financial performance and prospects and alleged violations of generally
accepted accounting principles by, among other things, improperly
recognizing revenue and improper inventory accounting.

The Company believes that these claims lack merit, and intends to
continue to vigorously defend this action. The Company and its CEO
filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which was denied.  The Company also
participated in a mediation in December 2001 that did not result in a
settlement of this action.


ADVANCED LIGHTING: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits in N.D. OH
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc. faces several shareholder
derivative suits commenced in December 2001 and January 2002, by
separate shareholders of the Company allegedly on behalf of the
Company, derivatively, against officers and directors of the Company.

The allegations in the three cases are substantially similar, and the
two cases filed in Ohio court have been removed to the United States
District Court, Northern District of Ohio.   The Company is a nominal
defendant in these actions, which names as defendants:

     (1) Wayne R. Hellman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
         Board, who is also beneficial owner of more than 5% of the
         outstanding common stock of the Company,

     (2) Alan J. Ruud, former Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chairman
         of the Board, who is also beneficial owner of more than 5% of
         the outstanding common stock of the Company,

     (3) Francis H. Beam,

     (4) John E. Breen,

     (5) John R. Buerkle,

     (6) Theodore A. Filson,

     (7) Louis S. Fisi,

     (8) Thomas K. Lime,

     (9) A Gordon Tunstall, and

    (10) Steven C. Potts, Chief Financial Officer and director

The suits allege breaches of duties by the defendants relating to the
matters which are the subject of federal securities suit in Ohio
federal court, to alleged insider trading by certain directors, to a
loan made to Mr. Hellman and to the sale of certain fixture facilities
to an investment group led by Mr. Ruud.

The plaintiffs in the suits submitted formal motions to remand these
actions back to state court, but the Federal judge denied their motions
and the cases are currently pending in Ohio Federal court.

The Company and the defendants believe that these claims lack merit and
intend to vigorously defend these actions.


AUSTRALIA: Failure to Clear Bushlands Prompts Shoalhaven Residents Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the community of Shoalhaven will likely join their
northern neighbors in launching a class action against their state
government, New South Wales, for its failure to clear bushland before
the devastating Christmas bushfires, according to a report by the
Illawarra Mercury.

Elyse White, a solicitor with the Marsdens Law Group, said a class
action will be launched by Oakdale residents within a month.  "I have
received similar expressions of interest from Shoalhaven residents,"
Ms. White said.

The litigation against the state government is due to its failure to
implement proper hazard reduction before the fires.  "[If these systems
were in place] the Christmas bushfires would have been less severe and
may have been able to be maintained," she said.  

Ms. White said that many residents, including those in the Shoalhaven
community, have lost their property and either had no insurance, not
enough insurance, or their losses were not covered by their insurance
company.

"One man's insurance company has refused to pay for the removal of
fire-damaged trees.  These trees are quite tall and will cost about
$1000 each to remove."  About 150 Shoalhaven buildings were destroyed
by the bushfire.

Ms. White said that this stage it would be "crystal ball stuff" to know
the impact adequate clearing would have had on the number of properties
lost.  "But we will be calling on an expert to measure fuel loads to
determine the difference clearing would have made," she added.

Information tabled in the State Parliament last week revealed a report
into bushfire hazard reduction, completed in September 2001, was not
acted on by the New South Wales government before the fires.  Southern
Highlands MP Peta Seaton said the Interdepartmental Committee Report on
Environmental Assessment for Bushfire Hazard Reduction was commissioned
in 1999 and recommended streamlining the approvals process for hazard
reduction work.  

"The Carr Government dithered rather than act decisively at a time when
forest fuel levels were dangerously high," Ms. Seaton said.

Opposition emergency services spokesman Andrew Stoner said, "This
important report has sat in the offices of Labor Government ministers
since September last year and was not made public, presumably because
of the embarrassment factor.  Labor stands condemned for their
prolonged inaction and secrecy over a report which, if acted upon
promptly, might have lessened the disastrous impact of the Christmas
bushfires."


BALTIMORE GAS: MD Court Schedules For 2003 Briefing For Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District Court of Maryland
scheduled in early 2003 a briefing process for class certification of a
class action filed against Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and:

     (1) Constellation Energy Group,

     (2) Constellation Nuclear, and

     (3) Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

The suit seeks class certification for approximately 150 past and
present employees and alleges racial discrimination at Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant.  The amount of damages is unspecified, however the
plaintiffs seek back and front pay, along with compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Company believes this case is without merit.  However, it cannot
predict the timing, or outcome of it or its possible effect on
financial results.


CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending against Caliper
Technologies Corporation filed an amended consolidated suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The suit also names as defendants three of the Company's officers and
Directors:

     (1) David V. Milligan,

     (2) Daniel L. Kisner and

     (3) James L. Knighton

The consolidated suit also names certain underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in December 1999 as defendants.

The suit alleges claims against the Company and the individual
defendants under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit alleges that these underwriters charged excessive, undisclosed
commissions to investors and entered into improper agreements with
investors relating to aftermarket transactions.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that similar complaints were filed in the same court against
hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPOs of their
common stock since the late 1990s.  These suits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York.

The Company believes that the claims alleged against it and its
officers and directors are without merit, and intends to defend this
case vigorously.


CANADA: War Veteran At Center Of Pension Fight Dies Before Suit Ends
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The veteran central to inception of the multibillion-dollar lawsuit
against the Canadian government for mismanaging the finances of
disabled war veterans has died, The Globe and Mail reports.  Joseph
Patrick Autherson, died last week in London, Ontario, at age 88.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled, in the class action, that Ottawa
must pay the majority portion of the legal costs incurred for a court
hearing before the province's highest court.  The legal bill could
reach nearly half a million dollars.  The appeals court also upheld the
ruling of an Ontario Superior Court judge who found Ottawa liable for
breaching a fiduciary trust with mentally and physically disabled
veterans.

The two rulings said that between 1919 and 1990, Ottawa mismanaged the
pension money and personal funds of thousands of veterans.  The courts
found that not only did the government fail to pay interest on pension
money, but it also took for its own use money held in trust, when some
veterans died, instead of turning it over to their heirs.

Peter Sengbusch, one of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit on behalf
of about 10,000 veterans, estimates that Ottawa owes its veterans
between $1.5 billion and $4 billion, depending on the interest rate
used.  Ottawa began paying interest to veterans on the monies held in
trust only in 1990, when Parliament changed legislation to provide for
such payments.

Mr. Sengbusch said that Mr. Autherson's death will not affect the
lawsuit, which will proceed under the name of his estate or its
executor.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: MI Residents File Suit Over To Train Derailment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten people forced out of their homes last month by the derailment of a
train carrying explosive liquid propane and toxic sulfuric acid filed
class action against Canadian National Railway Corp., Associated Press
Newswires reports.  

The suit, filed last week in Eaton County Circuit Court, accuses the
railroad of negligence in the Memorial Day derailment in Potterville,
about 12 miles southwest of Lansing, Michigan.  The 2,200-resident town
was evacuated for about four days.  Cause of the derailment has not
been determined.

Also named in the lawsuit as defendants are Grand Trunk Western
Railroad, a division of Canadian National, a track engineer and an
engineering superintendent.

Canadian National spokesman Jack Burke declined comment on the lawsuit.
He said the company has been reimbursing residents for their out-of-
pocket expenses during the evacuation, including hotel stays and lost
wages.  Those who accept the reimbursements waive their right to sue.  
He said about 200 checks had been given out.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Capstone Turbine
Corporation filed an amended suit in April 2002 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was originally commenced in December 2001, against the
Company, two of its officers, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from June 28, 2000 to December 6, 2000.

The amended suit alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's June 28, 2000 initial public offering
and November 16, 2000 secondary 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.

The plaintiffs further allege that the prospectuses for these two
public offerings were false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because they did not disclose these arrangements.

The Company understands that over three hundred other issuers have been
named as defendants in nearly identical law firms.  The Company intends
to defend these actions vigorously.  However, due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the
ultimate outcome of the litigation.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: US Bishops Break Off Talks With Abuse Victims Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Weeks of dialogue between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and
the main group that represents victims of sexual abuse by clergymen
collapsed recently, as the bishop who leads the conference abruptly
ended discussions about having the leaders of the victims' group
address the bishops' national meeting next week in Dallas, according to
a New York Times News Service report.

The president of the conference, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, announced
that the leaders of the Survivors Network of People Abused by Priests
(SNAP) would not be allowed to meet several cardinals or address the
bishops, as previously planned, because the group had filed a lawsuit
against the conference on Thursday of last week.

"We invited SNAP to speak with us publicly and in private sessions,"
Bishop Gregory said in a statement.  "Our invitation has been met with
a lawsuit."  SNAP is a plaintiff in a class action that seeks to void
the secrecy provisions in the hundreds of settlements signed by people
who say priests abused them.

David Clohessy, national director of the group, who has negotiated with
the bishops over the details of appearance at the conference by those
claiming to be victims, said his group was taken aback by the bishops'
decision.  The quarrel flared as the conference made final preparations
for its full membership, nearly 400 bishops, to meet to discuss the
church's response to the sexual abuse crisis.

SNAP's lawsuit, in state court in Minnesota, named as defendants the
Bishops Conference, the Archdioceses of St. Paul-Minneapolis and the
Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri.  The lawsuit focuses on two of the
most important churchmen who are organizing the meeting in Dallas,
Bishop Gregory and Archbishop Harold J. Flynn, who heads the Ad Hoc
Committee on Sexual Abuse for the conference.

Mr. Clohessy said that he and his colleagues had been negotiating with
Bishop Gregory and his aides since early last month over how the
victims might address the bishops.  Before the plans disintegrated, Mr.
Clohessy and others had been scheduled to meet on Wednesday of this
week with the Ad Hoc Committee and later that day with three cardinals.  
Mr. Clohessy said he was especially amazed by the bishops' sudden
cancellation because throughout Friday of last week he had been in
communication with the headquarters of the Bishops Conference.  He
complained that the conference did not inform him personally of its
decision before making its public statement and pointed out that they
have two cell phone numbers for him, two land lines, two fax lines,
(home and work), his pager and his e-mail addresses.

The statement from the conference said Bishop Gregory had sent Mr.
Cohessy a letter.  "I must say," said Bishop Gregory in his letter to
Mr. Clohessy, "that we are very disappointed that just at the moment
when frank and productive meetings could occur, SNAP has created a
barrier to the very cooperation you have called for so often in the
past.We still very much want to have discussions and work with SNAP and
the victims you represent.  Unfortunately, the circumstances now have
been changed, and we must begin again to establish dialogue."  

The letter said the bishops intended to proceed with their plan to meet
other groups of victims in Dallas.  A spokesman for the conference,
Monsignor Francis J. Maniscalco, said the Rev. Gary Hayes, a priest
from Kentucky, who is president of the other large organization of
victims of clerical abuse, Linkup, was scheduled to meet the Ad Hoc
Committee.

However, Rev. Hayes reacted angrily to the cancellation of the
appearances by SNAP's leaders, saying that he was evaluating whether to
withdraw his participation.  He said that Linkup was supposed to be
part of that same lawsuit.  "If we had gone ahead with joining the
lawsuit, they would have rescinded our invitation as well," he said.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Abuse Victims Sue Over Settlements' Secrecy Provisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A victims group is suing to eliminate the secrecy provisions in
settlements signed by people who say they were sexually abused by Roman
Catholic priests, Associated Press Newswires reports. The defendants in
the suit are:

     (1) the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis,

     (2) the Archdiocese of Dubuque, Iowa,

     (3) the Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri and

     (4) the Bishops Conference.

Jeffrey Anderson, an attorney who recently filed the lawsuit in Ramsey
County Court, said the group, Survivors Network of Those Abused by
Priests, wants to keep the settlements in tact, but with the secrecy
provision stricken because it goes against public policy.  The lawsuit
seeks class-action status.

"Hundreds, thousands of people who are suffering are unable to speak
the truth about what happened to them, and perpetrators remain
unknown," said Mr. Anderson who has represented about 500 people who
say they were abused by clergy.

Mark Chopko, the general counsel for the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops, said the lawsuit is a ploy to divert attention from the
bishops' meeting in Dallas next week.  "I regard this (lawsuit) as
completely bogus," he said.

Experts in class-action litigation are skeptical about the lawsuit.  
For class actions to be allowed, plaintiffs must show that what they
have in common outweighs their differences and that, since there are so
many of them, the cases would otherwise be unmanageable.  Edward H.
Cooper, a University of Michigan law professor, said, "It fails at
virtually all of the threshold criteria for class actions."

Among the differences, among the plaintiffs' cases, he continued, are
how the settlements were negotiated, what they say and what state law
governs them - no minor set of differences.

Professor Cooper, therefore, found himself agreeing, in essence, with a
second law professor, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. at the University of
Pennsylvania, who said about the lawsuit, "It looks like legal
showboating."


CONSTELLATION POWER: Plaintiff Asked To Explain Non-Service of Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of San Francisco has asked the
plaintiff in the class action against Constellation Power Development,
Inc., 22 other power companies and California Governor Gray Davis to
show cause why he had not yet served the defendants.  

The suit was commenced in October 2001, seeking damages of $43 billion,
recession and reformation of approximately 38 long-term power purchase
contracts, and an injunction against improper spending by the state of
California.  

The Company is named as a defendant but does not have a power purchase
agreement with the State of California.  However, its High Desert Power
Project does have a power purchase agreement with the California
Department of Water Resources.

The court issued the order to show cause in early 2002, and in April
2002, a second show cause order was issued.  The plaintiff has until
June 15, 2002 to respond.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.  The suits name the Company and directors Steven W.
Logan and John L. Hendrix as defendants.

The suits, brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock between March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002, involve disclosures made
concerning two prior transactions executed by the Company - the August
2001 sale leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease
transaction.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Also in March 2002, the Company, its directors, and its independent
auditor Arthur Andersen LLP, were sued in a derivative action filed in
the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The suit
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by all of the individual defendants
and asserts breach of contract and professional negligence claims only
against Arthur Andersen LLP.

The Company believes that it has good defenses to each of the
plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend against each of the
claims.

While the plaintiffs in these cases have not quantified their claim of
damages and the outcome of the matters discussed above cannot be
predicted with certainty, based on information known to date,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
operating results or cash flow.


DOW CHEMICAL: Faces Suit After Taking Out Life Insurance On Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical Company purchased life insurance on some Texas employees,
a practice that has prompted the workers' survivors to file a lawsuit,
suing in a Houston federal court, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.  The lawsuit has been granted class-action status.

Dolores Baker, lead plaintiff in the class action contended that if the
Company had such a policy on her husband, a security supervisor who
retired from the Company's plant in Freeport in 1993 and died in 1999,
she should get the benefit, not the company.

A Company official said policies were purchased only on employees who
consented.  The Company does not comment on pending litigation,
spokeswoman Leslie Hatfield told the Houston Chronicle.  Secretly
taking out such insurance policies is illegal in Texas, although
policies on workers have been permitted since 2000, but only if
employees give their consent in writing.

Charles Singletary, business manager for the International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 564 in Freeport, said he was shocked to hear
that Dow bought life insurance on its employees.  The union represents
1,000 employees at Dow Chemical in Freeport.

The Midland, Michigan-based Company is the latest company facing legal
action over so-called "dead peasant" policies, whole life insurance
purchased on rank-and-file employees, with the organization receiving
the benefit when the worker dies.


ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES: ReplayTV Users File Suit For Right To Skip Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Users of a digital video recorder recently sued a number of media
companies, including Walt Disney Co., Viacom Inc. and AOL Time Warner
Inc., to win a guarantee that they are not breaking the law when they
skip commercials and record television programs for later viewing,
reported the Reuters English News Service.

Five users of SONICblue Inc.'s ReplayTV said in their lawsuit, filed in
the US District Court for the Central District of California, that they
fear media companies will sue them for using the device, which is
essentially a digital version of a VCR.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the same federal court in Los
Angeles that is hearing a complaint from movie and television studios
against SONICblue.  The studios charge that ReplayTV allows customers
to violate their copyrights by skipping commercials, sending programs
over the Internet and allowing customers to amass vast digital
libraries of programming.  Media executives have said that skipping
commercials amounts to stealing, and won a motion, since reversed, that
would have required SONICblue to monitor the viewing habits of its
customers.

According to the SONICblue Web site, users can send programs to other
ReplayTV units on a home network, and to other ReplayTV units outside
the home at slower speeds.  However, in a conference call with
reporters, the plaintiff users said they were not engaged in piracy,
but used the device to save shows for later viewing and that they
screen out commercials when children were watching.

In trying to protect its programs from widespread bootlegging,
Hollywood has overstepped its bounds and infringed on consumers' long-
established "fair use" rights, said Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney
for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group which
is handling the plaintiff users' case.  "When it comes to television,
we are not in their movie theaters, they are in our living rooms," said
Mr. von Lohmann.

A lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Ira Rothken of the Rothken Law
Firm, said he hoped to join SONICblue in the lawsuit that the movie and
television studios are bringing against that company, so that a
consumer voice could be heard in the copyright infringement suit.  

A SONICblue official said he welcomed the consumer suit and said he was
currently meeting with his lawyer to determine whether combining the
two cases would be a good idea.  "Basically, we believe that consumers
have fair-use rights, and everything consumers do with a ReplayTV is
covered with fair-use," said Andy Wolfe, chief technical officer at
SONICblue.

Democratic Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia said the consumer suit
was a welcome development, and said he planned to introduce a bill soon
that would protect consumers' fair-use rights.


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions pending against Globix Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have
been consolidated into a single action.  The suits were commenced in
January 2002 against the Company and:

     (1) Marc Bell (Non-Executive Chairman),

     (2) Peter Herzig (Chief Executive Officer) and

     (3) Brian Reach (former Chief Financial Officer)

The consolidated suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between November 16, 2000 and December 27, 2001
and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The suits asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act.

In general, the suit alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants misrepresented the Company's financial condition and
business prospects to inflate the value of its 12.5% Senior Notes or
common stock, as the case may be.

A shareholder derivative action is also pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against:

     (1) Marc Bell,

     (2) Anthony St. John,

     (3) Robert Bell,

     (4) Martin Fox,

     (5) Jack Furst,

     (6) Michael Levitt,

     (7) Sid Patterson,

     (8) Harshad Shah,

     (9) Richard Videbeck,

    (10) Peter Herzig and

    (11) Brian Reach

This action is substantially identical to the above-mentioned lawsuit.

The Company has not yet responded to any of these lawsuits, and no
discovery has been conducted. The Company believes that the allegations
in each of these actions are without merit and intends to defend
against these actions vigorously.  However, there can be no assurance
that this litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company, its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: EEOC Files Suit For Alleged Age Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit
seeking class action status against Honeywell International Inc. for
allegedly discriminating against some of its older sales
representatives, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in New Jersey after
settlement talks failed, alleged that AlliedSignal Automotive
Aftermarket, an auto-products maker acquired by the Company, terminated
or demoted at least 56 sales representatives because of their age
during a company-wide reorganization in 1997.  The suit further alleged
that younger workers with less experience were often retained or
offered higher-paying jobs.

Company spokesman Tom Crane said, "AlliedSignal took great care in the
Automotive Aftermarket restructuring, and we are confident there was no
discrimination against these or any other individuals during the
restructuring."

An EEOC spokesman said the Company lawsuit includes three groups:  

     (1) six managers, mostly in their 50s, who were terminated in
         March 1997;

     (2) 18 sales representatives age 40 or older who were terminated
         in August 1997; and

     (3) 32 sales representatives age 40 or older who, in effect, were
         demoted during the same time period.  

The spokesman said that the case would probably be expanded to include
other plaintiffs, as the allegations arose during a national
reorganization of AlliedSignal.

"Rather than clearly stating their opposition to illegal discrimination
of any kind during this difficult transition, senior management (at the
former AlliedSignal Automotive Aftermarket) encouraged a pattern of age
discrimination that harmed older workers and violated the spirit and
letter of the law," said Jacqueline McNair, regional attorney of the
EEOC's Philadelphia office.

Allied Signal Inc. and Honeywell Inc. merged in December 1999, to
become Honeywell International.


INFOGRAMES INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's Dismissal of Columbine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against Infogrames, Inc and other
videogame and entertainment companies have appealed a Colorado State
Court's decision dismissing the suit, relating to the Columbine
shooting in 1999, in the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit was commenced in April 2001 by the family of William David
Sanders, a teacher murdered on April 2, 1999 in a shooting rampage
committed by Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold at the Columbine High
School in Jefferson County, Colorado.  The suit was brought against 25
defendants, including the Company and other corporations in the
videogame business, companies that produced or distributed the movie
The Basketball Diaries, and companies that provide allegedly obscene
internet content.

The suit alleges, with respect to the Company and other corporations in
the videogame business, that Mr. Harris and Mr. Klebold were influenced
by the allegedly violent content of certain videogames and that the
videogame manufacturers are liable for their conduct.

In June 2001 the Company waived service of a summons, and later filed a
motion to dismiss the suit.  After an exchange of motions for both
sides, the court granted the motion for dismissal.  The plaintiffs then
filed a motion for consideration, which the court denied on March 29,
2002.  

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit.


JAKARTA: Crash Survivors, Relatives of Victims File Suit V. Railway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of those killed last year in the train crash in Brebes,
Central Java, and the survivors are suing the state-owned railway
company PT KAI and the government for Rp 2.7 billion in a class action
lawsuit, the Jakarta Post reports.

The victims are represented by lawyers from the Consumer Advocacy Team
for Train Accident Victims.  The lawyers argued, at a hearing held last
week, that the victims should be put into five categories and should be
paid different amounts of compensation according to the seriousness of
the category.  These categories are:

     (1) deceased,

     (2) permanently disabled,

     (3) seriously injured,

     (4) lightly injured, and

     (5) lost some belongings

At the hearing held last week, lawyers for the families and the victim
survivors demanded that the defendants pay each victim compensation of
a maximum Rp 500 million each for non-material losses and between Rp 2
million and Rp 119 million for material losses.

The suit names as defendants the Ministry of Transportation, the
Ministry of the State-Owned Enterprise Empowerment and the Ministry of
Finance.

Setyo Lestari, who represented the Ministry of Transportation, urged
the plaintiffs to settle the case out of court.  "It was an accident,
nobody wanted it.  We are the government, which must serve people."  
Presiding Judge I. Nengah Suriada adjourned the hearing until June 20
to hear the arguments of the accused.

As many as 31 people were killed and scores more injured when the two
economy trains collided last December.  According to the lawsuit, PT
KAI failed to give proper servicing to the trains and train experts
said the accident was due to poor maintenance of the trains.  However,
PT KAI and the government represent that the crash occurred because of
human error.  The Company's Board of Directors resigned several days
after the accident.

Indonesia has witnessed many train accidents recently.  Last year alone
there were at least 13 accidents which claimed about 170 lives.  Most
of the accidents involved economy trains.  In most cases, it was the
engineers who were named as defendants.


KANSAS: Court Grants Certification To Natural Gas Explosion Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A judge ruled that a lawsuit stemming from natural gas explosions that
leveled two businesses and destroyed a trailer park now can proceed as  
a class action, Associated Press Newswires reports.

In the class action ruling, Judge Richard Rome, of Reno County District
Court, found that the number of potentially damaged property owners was
so great as to make a class action legally appropriate.  The lawsuit
also found several legal questions common to the class, such as whether
the defendants violated state law, whether the natural gas under
Hutchinson came from defendant ONEOK's Yaggy storage field, the path
and extent of gas migration from Yaggy and the defendants' liability
for damages.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) OneOk and its subsidiaries,

     (2) Kansas Gas Service, and

     (3) Mid-Continent Market Center

The lawsuit alleges that property values in Hutchinson and Reno County
dropped sharply after the explosions of January 17-18, 2001.  At the
recent hearing, Judge Rome granted the motion for class certification,
including all owners of real property and businesses in Reno County
"who have suffered or will suffer diminished property values as a
result of release and/or threatened release of natural gas from the
Yaggy facility."

Attorneys for more than 26,000 Reno County property owners and 1,700
businesses allege that the Yaggy leak is responsible for the two
explosions, plus a decline in property values.  However, attorneys for
the gas companies claim that values stood up after the 2001 explosions,
increasing seven percent in the first six months.

The members of the class are required by law to be notified for either
inclusion in the suit or elimination.


KENTUCKY: Berry Settlement On Hold As 18th Victim Enters Sex Abuse Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Word of another man who claims he was molested when he attended a
government-financed youth program years ago has put the brakes on a
$2.4 million settlement agreement in a class action against the city
of Lexington, Kentucky, The Lexington Herald Leader reports.

The suit initially was filed on behalf of 17 men who claimed to be
victims of the program's founder and operator, Ron Berry.  He was
convicted two years ago of a dozen counts of sodomizing teen-age boys
connected with the Micro-City government program from the 1970s into
the `90s.  The suit, filed in 2000, claimed city and government
officials knew or should have known about Mr. Berry, but did nothing.

The settlement was scheduled for approval in US District Court this
week, but attorney Eugene Goss of Harlan County filed a last-minute
motion to enter the case with an 18th alleged victim.  Judge Karl
Forester said that he was concerned the settlement would not end the
accusations and that taxpayers might be asked to pay more money should
other plaintiffs appear in the future.

With the possibility now so evident that victim after victim may enter
the case, Judge Forester is expected to consider at the next hearing a
recent request by the city to rule out any class actions.  However, Mr.
Treadway said he knows of enough other molestation victims to warrant
bringing one.  People will keep coming forward, he said, as long as the
case draws attention.  "The city does not want to deal with this,
but they are going to have to," he said.

Before he postponed settlement, Judge Forester expressed concern about
whether it was appropriate for Mayor Pam Miller to approve a settlement
in a case in which she was named as a defendant.  He then scheduled
agreement for June 28, leaving the outcome in question.

Mayor Miller had approved the settlement amount last month even as her
attorneys assured her there was no "credible" evidence that city
leaders knew that Mr. Berry was a predatory pedophile.  Federal judges
are barred from commenting on ongoing cases, and attorneys who attended
the hearing had differing opinions about what Judge Forester meant when
he brought up the issue of Mayor Miller's role in approving the
settlement.

Although Michael Baker, an attorney for the city, said he thought the
judge was merely curious, Robert Treadway, an attorney for the 17 men,
said he thought the judge was worried about the mayor's role.  "I think
one of the things he is concerned about is the potential conflict of
interest there," he said.

Mr. Berry was sentenced to three years in prison, but is free on bond
pending an appeal before the Kentucky Supreme Court.  The appeal was
rejected by the Kentucky Court of Appeals.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Offers Speedier Payments For Defective Home Siding
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation began offering speedier payments for
remaining defective home siding claims covered under a 1996 federal
court settlement, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The Portland-based wood products company already has paid more than
$400 million to settle about 139,000 claims arising from a national
class action over its oriented strandboard siding, a mixture of wood
flakes and resin pressed into boards.  Homeowners began suing the
Company in the early 1990s, when they found their home siding swelling
with moisture, cracking and breaking up.

Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Richard Unis, who was appointed by
a federal judge to supervise the national claims process, filed an
annual report to the federal court.  Judge Unis reported that payments
have been faster than most class action settlements, but many
homeowners may have to wait years for their money.  About 28,000 claims
still have not been settled.

The new program offers homeowners the choice of waiting for their claim
to be processed or accepting an immediate, discounted payment equal to
about 36 percent of their claim.

Under the original settlement, homeowners must have their houses
inspected, and their siding is graded on a number of factors, including
maintenance level, whether it was properly installed and its age.  
Refunds are a percentage of the original cost of the siding, based on
the inspection.

The new program applies to all eligible claims filed by last March 15.
The deadline for all claims is December 31.  "It is important for all
claimants to understand that their participation in this new program is
completely voluntary, and that the original settlement remains in
effect and unchanged," Judge Unis said late last week.

Many homeowners have complained that, even under the original
settlement, they received only enough to cover about a third or less of
the cost of replacement siding.


LUMENIS LTD.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumenis, Ltd. (formerly Esc Medical Systems, Inc.) faces several
securities class actions pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The suit names as defendants
the Company and:

     (1) Jacob Frenkel,

     (2) Yacha Sutton,  

     (3) Sagi Genger, and

     (4) Asif Adil

The suits generally allege that the Company violated United States
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the class period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

The suits allege that throughout the class period, defendants
discounted and disputed marketplace rumors about its operations even as
the Company knew it was being investigated by the SEC and that its
distributors had been contacted by the SEC.  Even after announcing in a
press release that it was subject to an SEC investigation, the Company
continued to hide the fact that it had been aware of the SEC
investigation and had been providing information to the SEC for several
weeks.

As of May 15, 2002, the Company has not been served with a summons and
complaint in these actions.  The Company believes that all the
allegations and claims in all of the above purported class action suits
are baseless, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against
them.


PEROT SYSTEMS: La Mesa Mayor Files Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Madrid, Mayor of the City of La Mesa, California, filed a class
action against Perot Systems Corporation, alleging that the Company
engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices.  The
Company was hired by the California Independent Systems Operator (Cal
ISO) and the California Power Exchange (PX) to develop and implement
the computer technology and information systems needed to trade  
wholesale electricity in California's newly deregulated energy market.

The suit alleges that the Company used its intimate knowledge of Cal
ISO's computer systems and trading protocols to identify "holes" in the
system and specific trading strategies which could allow energy traders
to manipulate the market and generate excessive profits.  

Documents recently released by the California Senate Select Committee
indicate that the Company may have conveyed this knowledge to energy
traders like Enron, that took advantage of deficiencies in Cal ISO's
system through the use of trading strategies which have been colorfully
dubbed "Death Star," "Get Shorty," and "Fat Boy," for example.

Raymond P. Boucher, one of the attorneys representing Mayor Art Madrid
in this action, said, "Perot Systems Corporation can spin this conduct
anyway they like, but their actions are akin to hiring a locksmith to
install a lock on the front door and then giving keys out to passersby
and calling neighbors."  He added, "This is particularly troubling
given that the Cal ISO engaged in and at times encouraged market
manipulation and bogus trades that tore the economic lid off of
California."

For more information, contact Raymond P. Boucher by Phone: 310-854-4444
or (310) 867-4169 or Co-counsel Michael J. Aguirre by Phone:
619-235-8636 or Mayor Art Madrid by Phone: 619-466-2222.


REMEDYTEMP INC.: Readying Vigorous Defense V. Fraud Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Remedytemp, Inc. intends to vigorously oppose the class action filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, on behalf of all of the Company's traditional and licensed
franchisees.  The suit also names as defendants Karin Somogyi, Paul W.
Mikos and Greg Palmer.

The suit alleges claims for:

     (1) fraud and deceit,

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) negligence,

     (4) breach of contract,

     (5) breach of warranty,

     (6) conversion and accounting,

     (7) unfair and deceptive practices, and

     (8) restitution and equitable relief.

The plaintiffs claim that the Company wrongfully induced its
franchisees into signing franchise agreements and breached the
agreements, thus causing the franchisees damage.

The Company has sought to compel arbitration with the plaintiffs in
accordance with its franchise agreement with each of them and to deny
class certification.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the allegations contained in this suit.  


SRI SURGICAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against SRI Surgical
Express, Inc. have filed a consolidated suit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from July 23, 2001 through
November 27, 2001, claims violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under that
act.  The suit alleges that during the class period, the Company and
the individual defendants made materially false statements concerning
the Company's financial condition and its future prospects.

The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to this matter
and intends to assert them vigorously.  Management of the Company is
unable to determine the impact, if any, that the resolution of this
matter will have on the financial position or results of operations of
the Company.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Smokers' Lawyers Ask Court To Uphold $145B Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for sick Florida smokers who won a $145 billion class action
against the biggest US cigarette manufacturers, said last week that the
verdict should be upheld because it was based on the evidence and would
not financially break any company, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

In a 256-page filing at Florida Circuit Court, attorneys Stanley and
Susan Rosenblatt said the punitive damages were not excessive because
the actual damages caused to the estimated 300,000 to 700,000 sick
smokers could be measured in trillions of dollars.  The two attorneys
also said that there is no evidence that any of the five companies
would go broke - the companies would be able to borrow the money.

The trial jury set the punitive damage sum in July 2000, after a two-
year trial, deciding that cigarettes are deadly, addictive and
defective because they make people sick when used as directed.   The
cigarette companies have filed an appeal, asking that the verdict
rendered in year 2000, and the class action status of the lawsuit be
overturned.  The defendant companies are:

     (1) Philip Morris,

     (2) RJ Reynolds,

     (3) Brown & Williamson,

     (4) Lorillard and

     (5) the Liggett Group

"The tobacco companies' position is that they should not be
inconvenienced by having to borrow against their enormous capital - as
if punitive damages should not exceed their petty cash," the
Rosenblatts wrote.  They also said that the evidence showed that the
companies over the years withheld information linking cigarettes to
lung cancer and other diseases and misled the public about smoking's
dangers.  "The harm and potential harm to Floridians from the tobacco
industry's misconduct is enormous," the Rosenblatts wrote.


William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris' vice president and associate
general counsel, said the Rosenblatt's arguments are "long on rhetoric
and short on legal reasoning" and that the lawsuit was
"unconstitutional and virtually impossible to finally resolve."  Mr.
Ohlemeyer said that it would take decades before each smoker's claim is
resolved and just as long to apportion each smoker's share of the
award.  The companies will have 20 days to respond to the filing.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal, the starting point for any state
appeal in Miami, already has sided with the smokers several times in
the case, both before and after trial.  In its most significant ruling,
the appeals court authorized the class-action covering the smokers as a
group in a single trial.

More recently, the court allowed a trial on compensatory damages by one
severely ill smoker, who, the medical evidence showed, would be dead
soon and would not, therefore, be present, when the time arrived in the
course of the litigation, to place his evidence before a jury setting
compensatory damages.  The defendants have insisted that no individual
claims, besides the three representative cases heard during the trial,
should go forward during the appeal process.


UTAH: Suit Challenges State's Right To 100% Medicaid Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Utah Supreme Court has been asked to strike down the state's policy
of reimbursing itself first for Medicaid bills before injury victims
get a share of insurance settlements, Associated Newswires reports.

A class action filed against the Department of Health, Office of
Recovery Services, and Department of Human Services challenges Utah's
policy of reimbursing itself 100 percent for Medicaid bill payments, in
cases where patients are able to recover money from an insurance policy
or lawsuit settlement.  

Consequently, the injury victims are left with just a tiny fraction of
actual insurance policy limits and damages awarded in lost wages, and
pain and suffering.  Those who are permanently disabled face a lifetime
of future expenses, but get to keep little or no money from their
settlement toward defraying such expenses, the lawsuit contends.

Attorney Robert Sykes, who filed the suit in 1995, said the practice
violates federal laws preventing the government from placing liens on
property to pay for medical bills.  "The state may recover in full .  
under some circumstances," Mr. Sykes told the justices of the Utah
Supreme Court, in a hearing last week.  "But what it should not do is
impoverish those people that the Medicaid program is designed to
protect."

Instead of an insurance reimbursement policy of 100 percent for the
state's payment of bills under Medicaid, the lawsuit calls for a system
of proportionate payments and asks the state to reimburse patients who
have lost out over the past seven years.

Assistant Attorney General Brent Burnett said the state's ability to
recover all of its money already has been upheld.  "This is the fourth
case they've (the Utah Supreme Court) heard, and three times now they
have said the policy does not violate the federal statute," Mr. Burnett
said.  "Our position is that it already has been decided."


VERISIGN INC.: Building Strong Defense V. Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Verisign, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against several securities
class actions pending against the Company and certain of its executive
offices in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002, alleges that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition,
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These statements
artificially inflated the price of the Company's securities.

In addition, a shareholder derivative complaint has been filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, against
our board of directors and certain executive officers alleging
violation of the California Corporations Code, breach of fiduciary duty
and other violations of law.

Neither the Company nor any of its directors or officers have been
served with either of these lawsuits.


WARNECO GROUP: NY Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a class action brought against the Warnaco Group and other
clothing manufacturers, alleging violations of security laws, according
to filed court papers.  The individual defendants, all officers in the
Warnaco Group, are:

     (1) Linda J. Wachner,

     (2) William S. Finkelstein, and

     (3) Sidney Silverstein

Lead plaintiffs in this case are Fresno County Employees Retirement
Association, Reams Asset Management Co. and the Barbara Wilderman
Irrevocable Trust.  The proposed class consists of person who purchased
shares of Company common stock at allegedly inflated prices from
September 17, 1997 to July 19, 2000.

Plaintiffs, in their defense against the motion to dismiss the suit,
said that despite the representations of sales projections for each
division of their manufacturing plant (intimate apparel, menswear,
swimwear, men's and women's sportswear, among other things), made by
the Company to their senior financial analysts, the Company
"deliberately manipulated inventory figures and concealed the fact that
excess, obsolete and slow-moving inventory was building up quarter
after quarter throughout the Class Period."

Company Investors also alleged that the knowingly or recklessly failed
to properly devalue such "excess, obsolete, slow-moving inventory,"
thereby allowing the Company to report materially false and misleading
financial results throughout the class period.

The plaintiff investors further alleged that defendants filed false,
misleading financial statements with the Security Exchange Commission
throughout the class period.  When defendants announced revisions in
certain figures, attributing such revisions to adoption of changes in
accounting principles, Price Waterhouse (defendants' outside auditors)
warned of a material weakness in the Company's Intimate Apparel
Division's manufacturing costs system.  Defendants hid the information
about such warning of a "material weakness" from the investors.

The plaintiff investors also alleged that the Company produced some
restatements in early 1998, 1999 that recognized adjustments in costs
of goods sold for those years.  In July 2000, the Company announced, in
a press release, filed with the SEC, that it intended to take an after-
tax charge in the second quarter of 2000, of approximately $60 to $70
million in connection with its recently launched global operating
initiatives.  

Plaintiff investors also alleged that, among other things, the Company,
at this time, revealed that the SEC was conducting an investigation for
possible securities violations.

The plaintiff investors finally alleged, that based upon all their
allegations, their claims are not time-barred as defendants allege and
that the action was brought within one year of their discovery of the
fraud.

The court's decision was not based on the merits of the case but on the
threshold issue, whether the suits securities fraud allegations were
time-barred by the Statute of Limitations.  The court decided the
allegations were time-barred and granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the suit.  The court stated several reasons, namely:

     (i) while the inventory fraud complained of by plaintiffs surfaced
         after the 1998 10-KA form was filed with the SEC in May 2000,
         at which time the Company identified specific problems with
         the inventory costing control system, plaintiffs could
         reasonably have been put on inquiry notice before that point;

     (2) actually, their duty to investigate arose as of April 2, 1999,
         when the dramatic reversals of net income and net costs
         figures appeared in the 1998/10-K form, filed April 2, 1999.  
         Such information would have put the reasonable investor on
         inquiry of notice, creating a duty that they investigate as of
         that date.  Plaintiffs, however, failed, at that time, to make
         diligent efforts to uncover a possible fraud.  Plaintiffs have
         stated that their suspicions were allayed by defendants'
         statement that the revisions were due to adoption of new
         accounting principles.  Judge McKenna said that defendants'
         statement was not sufficient to put to rest the suspicions
         that would have arisen in the mind of the reasonable investor.

Therefore, the court found that plaintiffs should have investigated and
filed their lawsuit in 1999, not 2000, and their claims were time-
barred, and granted the motion for dismissal.  
   
                       New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLIED DIGITAL: Glancy Binkow Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons who purchased securities of Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants disseminated a
series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the
nature of the Company's revenue recognition practices and the lack of
proper accounting controls at certain of the Company's subsidiaries.

The suit charges that defendants were in possession of materially
adverse information about the Company's improper accounting practices
but failed to disclose the information to investors for more than two
years, causing Company stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting enormous damages on investors.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


APPLIED DIGITAL: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Applied Digital
Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSXE) between February 11, 2000, and May 10,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company and Richard J. Sullivan, its
Chief Executive Officer.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants were in possession of materially
adverse information concerning the lack of proper accounting controls
and improper revenue recognition practices at certain of the Company's
subsidiaries, but failed to disclose the information to investors for
more than two years.

On April 18, 2002, the Company disclosed that during the year ending
December 31, 2001, one of the Company's subsidiaries had been booking
revenue without "evidence of customer acceptance prior to the
recognition of certain revenue."  The Company also disclosed that the
subsidiary "did not have proper restrictions to vendor access within
its accounts payable system."

Additionally, the Company disclosed that during the year ended December
31, 2000, a second subsidiary "lacked monitoring controls over its
accounts receivable and was unable to provide certain detailed
inventory listings for certain general ledger balances."  The
disclosure of improper accounting practices at the Company's
subsidiaries drove Applied Digital's stock down 40%.

Approximately three weeks later, on May 9, 2002, defendants claimed
that nearly every major hospital in the West Palm Beach, Florida, area
would be equipped with VeriChip scanners - an indispensable component
of the Company's Verichip technology.  However, not one hospital in
West Palm Beach or anywhere else had accepted or agreed to use a
scanner, an essential device for retrieving the VeriChip's information.

One day later, on May 10, 2002, when the truth was disclosed that no
hospital had accepted a scanner, Company stock fell sharply, dropping
nearly 30% in one day.

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 or Kenneth J. Vianale or Tara Isaacson by Mail: The
Plaza 5355 Town Center Road Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
561-361-5000 by E-mail: AppliedDigitalcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com  


CMS ENERGY: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against CMS Energy
Corporation (NYSE:CMS), and certain of its officers and directors was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, on behalf of purchasers of CMS securities between August
3, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued
false and misleading statements, which artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact James E. Tullman, Mark D. Smilow, and/or
David C. Katz by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025
or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


CMS ENERGY: Schoengold & Sporn Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons or institutions who purchased shares of CMS Energy
Corporation (NYSE: CMS) between August 3, 2000 through and including
May 10, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
public disclosures regarding the Company's cash flows from operations
and failing to disclose information material to investors, including
that the Company and three of its top executives engaged in "round
trip" energy trading to artificially boost earnings. Round-trip trading
refers to the practice whereby two companies buy and sell the same
amount of power at the same price and at the same time, resulting in a
financial "wash" for both companies.

The suit alleges that these trading practices lacked any economic
substance and were used by the Company to improperly record
approximately $4.4 billion in revenue and to manipulate the market into
thinking the Company was a significant player in the power marketing
industry.

On May 9, 2002, the truth about the Company's trading practices began
to emerge when a news report revealed that the Company had engaged in
round-trip trading with Dynegy, Inc.  On May 13, 2002, Reliant
Resources, Inc. stated that it had also conducted round-trip trading
with the Company.  The Company has confirmed such trading with both
companies.

On May 15, 2002, the Company disclosed that its energy-marketing unit
had "entered into `round-trip' electricity trades . from May 2000
through mid-January 2002. Thirteen of the trades accounted for about 98
percent of the volume."  On May 24, 2002, the Company announced the
resignation of its Chairman and CEO.

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 Jay Saltzman or Ashley Kim by Mail: 19 Fulton
Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038 by Phone: 212-964-0046 or
866-348-7700 by Fax: 212-267-8137 or by E-mail:
ShareholderRelations@spornlaw.com


DYNEGY INC.: Wolf Popper Files Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP amended a securities class action against Dynegy, Inc.
(NYSE: DYN) and certain of its senior officers pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to reflect
recent developments and with an expanded class period which includes
all of those persons who purchased Company common stock from April 17,
2002 through May 15, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants manipulated the market price of the
Company's common stock by artificially inflating its reported cash flow
from operations by $300 million and improperly claiming $79 million in
tax benefits through a scheme entitled "Project Alpha."

On April 25, 2002, the Company announced that the Securities and
Exchange Commission was conducting an inquiry into its accounting
practices in connection with Project Alpha, and that it would amend its
2001 financial statements to correct the improper recognition of $300
million in cash flow from operations.

The Company also acknowledged on May 15, 2002 that it was reversing the
$79 million tax benefit and consequently reducing its 2001 net income
by approximately 12%, or 23 cents a share, from $648 million, or $1.90
per share, to $569 million, or $1.67 per share. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission is also conducting an inquiry into the
circumstances surrounding Project Alpha, and the United States
Attorney's Office in Houston has subpoenaed documents from the Company
in connection with Project Alpha.

During the class period, shares of the Company's common stock traded as
high as $57.95 per share, in May of 2001.  Following the Company's
announcement of the SEC probe and the revision of its financial
statements on April 25, 2002, its common stock a closing price of
$27.30 per share on April 24, 2002 to $14.90 per share on April 26,
2002.  The market price of the Company's shares has continued to
decline since then, falling to $7.65 per share on May 15, 2002, the
date it announced the cancellation of the Project Alpha tax benefit and
the restatement of its net income, and closing at a 52 week low of
$6.70 per share on May 17, 2002.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel by Mail: 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9620 by Phone: 877-370-7703
by Fax: 212-486-2093 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com  


EXELON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action against
Exelon Corporation, (NYSE:EXC) claiming that the company misled
investors about its business and financial condition.  The suit is
pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's
securities between April 24, 2001 and September 27, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the Illinois-based Company repeatedly issued
statements concerning the strength of its operations and repeatedly
assured the market that it would meet or beat its $4.50 per share
projected earnings figure for 2001.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose, among other things:

     (1) that the investments in telecommunications companies held by
         Exelon's Enterprises segment were dropping in value at a rapid
         pace and, therefore, the Enterprises segment could not and
         would not meaningfully contribute to the Company's financial
         results, and that in fact, the Company was carrying tens of
         millions of dollars of impaired investments on its financial
         statements; and

     (2) that InfraSource, Exelon's infrastructure subsidiary, was
         experiencing declining demand for its products as its primary
         customers, telecommunications companies, were facing severe
         industry-wide problems, such as mounting debt and over-
         capacity, and were significantly cutting back on their capital
         expenditures.

On September 27, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it would not meet its earnings commitment of $4.50 for 2001,
blaming the economy, poor weather and write-downs for failed
investments made by the Enterprises unit.  In reaction to the
announcement, its common stock price plunged by 22%, falling to a low
of $38.85 per share on September 27, 2001, after closing at $50.45 the
previous day, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Alfred Yates Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred G. Yates initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Halliburton Company
(NYSE:HAL) during the period between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002,
inclusive.

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 Alfred G. Yates, Jr by Mail: 519 Allegheny
Building, 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 by Phone:
800-391-5164 by Fax: 412-471-1033 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.  All
e-mail correspondence should indicate your mailing address. Information
will be mailed to you at your request.


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Halliburton Company
(NYSE:HAL) between July 22, 1999 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, 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706, 610-822-2221 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of 24/7 Real Media, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TFSM) from May 12, 1999 through November 9, 2000 against
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

The suit alleges that in order to maintain and enhance Merrill's
investment banking relationships with TFSM, the firm issued analyst
reports with positive ratings on TFSM which were materially misleading
as they were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private
adverse assessments of TFSM made at the same time, but never revealed
to the public. For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short-
term accumulate, long-term buy rating on TFSM despite their internal e-
mails, which criticized an investment in TFSM.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (Nasdaq: TFSM)
common stock during the period between May 12, 1999 and November 9,
2000, inclusive, against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and its former star
Internet analyst Henry Blodget for violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that in order to maintain and enhance Merrill Lynch's
investment banking relationships with 24/7, defendants issued analyst
reports with positive ratings on 24/7 which were materially misleading
as they were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private
adverse assessments of 24/7 made at the same time, but never revealed
to the public. For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short-
term accumulate, long-term buy rating on 24/7 despite their internal e-
mails, which criticized an investment in 24/7.

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


MUTUAL RISK: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Mutual Risk Management Ltd.
(NYSE:MM; Non NASDAQ OTC:MLRMF) publicly traded securities during the
period between February 16, 2000 and April 2, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleges that during the class period, the Company and its most senior
officers and directors disseminated materially false financial
statements for each of the Company's interim quarters during that
period and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001, which
materially overstated the Company's cumulative revenues and its net
income.  Defendants also made a series of other materially false and
misleading statements about the Company and its financial condition and
performance.

As a result of the materially false and misleading statements and
omissions described herein, Company stock was inflated to an all-time
high of $23.75 per share.

The Company also represented in each of its quarterly and annual
filings with the SEC that the financial statements included therein had
"been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles" and "reflected all adjustments necessary for a fair
presentation of results for such periods."  In reality, each of the
Company's financial statements violated GAAP by understating reserves
for potential claims. The financial results included in its SEC filings
during the class period were thereby rendered materially false and
misleading.

Then, on April 2, 2002, the Company admitted that even its disastrous
Q4 2001 results (announced February 19, 2002) were not accurate,
putting the Company's shares into another "free fall," trading at just
pennies per share following the April 2, 2002 admission.

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


NEOPHARM INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of NeoPharm, Inc. (Nasdaq:
NEOL) between September 25, 2000 and April 19, 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 suit alleges that the
Company issued a series of statements concerning its Liposome
Encapsulated Parclitaxel (LEP) product, and that the defendants:

     (1) made materially false positive statements to Pharmacia
         Corporation in order to induce their participation in clinical
         trials of LEP;

     (2) failed to disclose that Pharmacia Corporation was studying a
         different formulation of LEP that would not necessarily
         support the approval of the Company's LEP product; and

     (3) failed to disclose that all of Pharmacia Corporation's
         clinical trails failed to produce any positive benefits to
         patients.

In addition, certain individual defendants wrongfully sold Company
shares on the open market at artificially inflated prices, reaping
proceeds of over $7 million.

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson, LLC commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Peregrine Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PRGN) during the period from July 21, 1999 through May 22,
2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning Peregrine's
business and financial condition thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities.  Specifically, as alleged in the
complaint, plaintiff and the class were injured as a result of
defendants' misrepresentations, omissions and other fraudulent conduct
alleged.

Company stock began its decline on May 1, 2002 following its April 30,
2002 announcement that the release of the 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 Jerold B. Hoffman by Mail: 45 W. Court
Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 by Phone: 877-537-6532 (toll free) by Fax;
215-230-8735 or by E-mail: jhoffman@hofedlaw.com.  


RELIANT RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
claiming that Reliant Resources, Inc. (NYSE:RRI) 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 Company securities between May
14, 1999 and May 10, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Texas-based Company issued statements
regarding its quarterly and annual financial performance and filed
reports confirming such performance with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC).

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

     (1) the Company's stated and represented revenues in 1999 and 2000
         were materially overstated because 10% of such revenues
         represented purchases and sales with the same counter-party at
         the same price, or so-called "round trip trades"; and

     (2) the Company improperly accounted for certain transactions in
         its conventional accrual accounts as cash flow hedges.

On May 10, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it was canceling a $500 million private placement debt
offering that had been priced on May 9, 2002, due in part, to having
engaged in "round trip" trades.

Following this announcement, the Company's common stock fell from a
high of $15.10 on May 9, 2002 to a low of $11.10 on May 10, 2002, or a
single-day decline of more than 25% on high trading volume and a
decline of more than 55% from the class period high.

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


TEXTRON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in RI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Textron, Inc. (NYSE:TXT)
between October 19, 2000 and September 26, 2001, inclusive.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Lewis B. Campbell,

     (2) John A. Janitz,

     (3) Theodore R. French and

     (4) Terry D. Stinson

The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business and financial condition.  The suit
alleges that, throughout the class period, the Company failed to
disclose that the V-22 Osprey, a military aircraft that it was
manufacturing, suffered from structural defects that required that it
be substantially redesigned. This delay of full-scale production of the
Osprey lasted for years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in
excess of the costs allocated to the project for the purpose of
calculating profit and loss.

On September 26, 2001, as alleged in the complaint, the Company issued
a press release over the Business Wire in which it reduced its guidance
for the third and fourth quarter of 2001, and announced that it
expected a third-quarter loss of $0.25 per share, compared to the
consensus forecast of earnings of $0.71 center per share.

The complaint alleges that the Company attempted to blame its poor
performance on "the slowdown in the US economy" and "the impact of
events on September 11."  However, as alleged in the complaint, the
Company was also forced to admit that its reduced earnings were
resulting from "a number of significant adjustments as Bell Helicopter
and other Textron businesses," including a special charge of
approximately $0.52 per share resulting from "stretched out production
schedules and additional costs to make design changes in the V-22 and
H-1 government programs."

In the same press release, the Company announced the abrupt departures
of Mr. Janitz as Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Stinson as Chief
Executive Officer of Bell Helicopter.  On this news, Company shares
dropped to a year- low price of $33.04 per share down 23% from the
previous day's closing price of $43, on relatively heavy trading volume
of 4,393,200 shares traded.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706, 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  * * *