---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, June 12, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 115

                            Headlines

APPLIED DIGITAL: Building Defense V. Securities Suits in Florida
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Survivors Network Withdrawing From Sex Abuse Suit
CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES: Fire-Prone Furnace Owners Will Get Rebates
COPPER MOUNTAIN: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CREDIT CARD: High Court Refuses Review of Antitrust Suit Certification

deCODE GENETICS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DUPONT CO.: Jury Awards $380,000 To Three Sickened Near NJ Plant
GOLF TRUST: Plaintiffs Fail To File Amended Suit, Claims Dismissed
GOODYEAR CORP: Employees Confer About Bringing Age Discrimination Suit
HIFN CO.: $9.5 Million Securities Suit Settlement Reached in N.D. CA

IDAHO: Residents Oppose State Grass Burning Policy Due To Health Hazard
LIQUID AUDIO: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Acquisition Offers in DE
LIQUID AUDIO: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
MODEM MEDIA: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NETBANK INC.: Agrees To Settle Suit Over CompuBank Accounts Acquisition

NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Suit For Unpaid Overtime in S.D. CA
NEW CENTURY: GA Court Grants Motion To Stay Suit over RESPA Violations
NEW CENTURY: Asks For Dismissal of Suit Over IL State Law Violations
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY

SPANISH BROADCASTING: Asking NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Arguments Over $145B Tobacco Appeal Proceed in FL
TOBACCO LITIGATION: RJ Reynolds Fined $20M For Targeting Teens

* Catholic Church Faces Mass of Suits Alleging Sexual Abuse by Priests   

                   New Securities Fraud Cases    

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Holzer & Holzer Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
APPLIED DIGITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
APPLIED DIGITAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
APPLIED DIGITAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
APPLIED DIGITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL

DUKE ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DUKE ENERGY: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
DYNEGY INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
DYNEGY INC.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
EDISON SCHOOLS: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY

EXELON CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
KNIGHT TRADING: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MUTUAL RISK: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
MUTUAL RISK: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Rabin & Peckel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
RAYMOND JAMES: Two Firms Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. WI
UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
                            
                            *********

APPLIED DIGITAL: Building Defense V. Securities Suits in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. faces several securities class actions
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.  The suit, which also names Richard Sullivan, its Chief
Executive Officer, as defendant, was filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's publicly traded securities during the period between
February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002, inclusive.

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

The Company expects that, as is common in these types of actions, other
similar complaints will likely be filed and that all the complaints
will eventually be consolidated into one action.  The Company believes
the pending actions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Survivors Network Withdrawing From Sex Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An advocacy group for victims of sex abuse by priests said on Sunday
that it will withdraw from a lawsuit that prompted Roman Catholic
bishops to bar them from this week's meeting concerning removing
predators from the priesthood, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network for Those
Abused by Priests, said his group wanted to remove any obstacles to
talks and will formally withdraw from the lawsuit on Monday.  "We don't
want anything to get in the way of genuine dialogue that might
ultimately benefit children," Mr. Clohessy said in a letter to Bishop
Wilton Gregory, president of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops.  "We hope you see it as a tangible step toward reconciliation
and toward making the church safer."

Mr. Clohessy had been scheduled to address the bishops during the
opening session of their three-day meeting that starts Thursday in
Dallas.  He and members of SNAP, along with other victims, also had
been invited to meet privately with three cardinals, and address a
closed session of the bishops' panel engaged in devising a national
policy on disciplining abusive clergy.

The plans were made final last Thursday.  However, that same day, SNAP
joined a class action in Minnesota against the bishops' conference and
several dioceses, seeking to void confidentiality agreements in
settlements with victims.  

Bishop Gregory said the litigation created a legal barrier to
discussion, and withdrew his invitation to Mr. Clohessy and SNAP.  He
said he was "very disappointed" that his efforts to bring the sides
together had been "met with a lawsuit."


CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES: Fire-Prone Furnace Owners Will Get Rebates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners with certain fire-prone furnaces will be eligible for a $300
rebate if they already have replaced their faulty furnaces, or $150 off
a new one, under the terms of a settlement in a class action, filed in
Santa Clara County Superior Court, the Contra Costa Times (Walnut
Creek, CA) reports.

The settlement with manufacturer Consolidated Industries and retailer
Addison was reached last week.  Owners of the furnaces will be eligible
for free inspections and can either have the flawed parts removed or
get $150 discounts on a new furnace.  Replacing a furnace can cost as
much as $2,000.

Consolidated produced about 190,000 faulty furnaces from 1983 to 1994.  
They were sold under many brand names, including Trane, Addison, Amana,
Bard and Kenmore.  The faulty gas-burning furnaces were fitted with
steel rods above the burners to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, but
those rods could get very hot, crack the furnace casings and spew
flames.  The furnaces have started more than 50 fires.  They also allow
deadly carbon monoxide to mix with heated air.

More than 100,000 homeowners in California could be eligible to receive
part of the settlement.  Claims must be filed by January 13, 2003.

The Company filed for bankruptcy and liquidated its assets before the
settlement was reached.


COPPER MOUNTAIN: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Copper Mountain
Networks, Inc. filed an amended suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit names the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.

In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and its IPO underwriters violated the federal
securities laws because the Company's IPO registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The Company stated that similar complaints were filed in the same court
against numerous public companies that conducted initial public
offerings (IPOs) of their common stock since the mid-1990s.  In August
2001, all of the above-referenced lawsuits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York.  

Judge Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on
September 7, 2001, at which time she ordered, among other things, that
the time for all defendants to respond to any complaint be postponed
until further order of the court.  Judge Scheindlin has not yet set a
date for the defendants to respond to the amended complaint, so the
Company has not been required to answer or respond to the complaint or
the amended complaint, and no discovery has been served on the Company.


CREDIT CARD: High Court Refuses Review of Antitrust Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused to review a New York appeals
court ruling upholding class certification to an antitrust class action
filed against two of the nation's biggest credit card companies, Visa
and Mastercard, the Associated Press reports.

The suit was commenced in 1996, lead by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., charging
the defendants of "anti-competitive behavior."  The defendants
allegedly used their clout in the credit card industry to force
merchants to accept their costly debit cards.

Class certification was granted to the suit, allowing four million
retailers to take part in the antitrust suit.  The two companies filed
an appeal with the New York appeals court, seeking to stop class
certification.  The appellate court turned down the motion, in a 2-to-1
decision.

The Companies and several banking groups sought to overturn this
ruling, arguing that the suit could threaten the stability of the
country's marketplace.  In an earlier Class Action Reporter story, the
Companies said "the large number of retailers in the class could make
damages so high, that defendants would be forced to settle regardless
of a case's merits and that the class is unwieldy.

Carter Phillips, the Washington attorney for the credit card companies,
told the court that with more than 3,000 class-actions filed in federal
courts every year, judges need more direction from the Supreme Court on
when to allow them, according to an Associated Press report.

"So long as there is uncertainty about this bedrock issue, it will
frequently recur and consume scarce judicial resources," Phillips wrote
in court papers.  "It is no exaggeration to say that a class
certification can result in financial devastation for employers,
industries, and entire segments of the economy and alter policies and
practices whose legality has never been adjudicated."

New York attorney Lloyd Constantine, representing the merchants, said
the credit cards' "predicament is not a product of coercion or
blackmail. It is the product of their conduct" and current rules for
the suits.


deCODE GENETICS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities suits against deCODE Genetics, Inc. filed
an amended suit in April 2002, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock from July 17, 2000 to
December 6, 2000.  The suit names the Company, two of its current
executive officers, and the two lead underwriters for our initial
public offering in July 2000 as defendants.

In the amended suit, the plaintiff alleges violations of Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
against the defendants.   In addition, the amended complaint alleges
violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual
defendants.

Generally, the amended complaint alleges that the underwriter
defendants:

     (1) solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
         from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriter
         defendants allocated to those investors material portions of
         the shares of the Company's stock sold in the IPO;

     (2) entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriter
         defendants agreed to allocate shares of our stock sold in the
         IPO to those customers in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's stock in
         the aftermarket at pre-determined prices; and

     (3) improperly used their analysts, who purportedly suffered from
         conflicts of interest, to manipulate the market.

The amended complaint further alleges that the prospectus incorporated
into the registration statement for the IPO was materially false and
misleading in that it failed to disclose these arrangements.  The
amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants had numerous interactions and contacts with the underwriters
from which they either knew of, or recklessly disregarded, the
underwriters' purported wrongful acts.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
hundreds of other lawsuits filed (many by some of the same plaintiff
law firms) against numerous underwriter defendants and issuer companies
(and certain of their current and former officers) in connection with
various public offerings conducted in recent years.  All of the
lawsuits that have been filed in the Southern District of New
York have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before Honorable
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Pursuant to the underwriting agreement executed in connection with the
Company's IPO, the Company has demanded indemnification from the
underwriter defendants. The underwriter defendants have asserted that
the Company's request for indemnification is premature.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends
to contest them vigorously.  The litigation is, however, in the
preliminary stage, and the Company cannot predict its outcome and the
ultimate effect, if any, on its financial condition.


DUPONT CO.: Jury Awards $380,000 To Three Sickened Near NJ Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Paterson, New Jersey jury recently awarded $380,000 to three people
it determined were sickened by exposure to chemicals from a now-defunct
DuPont munitions plant, The Associated Press reports.

The jury awarded $140,000 each to Colleen Dunkerly and Helen Maikath,
and $100,000 to Melissa Robinson.  DuPont of Wilming also has been
ordered to pay for lifetime medical monitoring for the women.

However, Superior Court Judge Frank Donato declared a mistrial on the
remaining questions of whether seven plaintiffs were entitled to
lifetime medical monitoring.  In their 12th day of deliberations,
jurors in the complicated civil trial said they could not agree on
whether the remaining plaintiffs needed to be checked for signs of
future illness for the rest of their lives.  The jury said further
deliberations were pointless.

The Company has spent $130 million over the past decade cleaning up
contamination around its closed plant in Pompton Lakes, a town of
10,000 residents.   The munitions plant operated for nearly a century
before it closed in 1994.


GOLF TRUST: Plaintiffs Fail To File Amended Suit, Claims Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Golf Trust of
America, Inc. failed to file an amended suit in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, thus causing the dismissal of the suit to be
final.

The suit was initiated in April 2001, against the Company and its
directors and officers.  The suit was later amended to include Banc of
America Securities LLC and Bank of America NA as defendants.  The suit
was filed on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders other than the
defendants and their affiliates or immediate family members for damages
in an unspecified amount.

The plaintiff alleged that payments to certain officers under their
amended and restated employment agreements and an agreement to sell
golf courses to Legends resulted from a breach of the defendants'
fiduciary duties to stockholders and that these transactions constitute
non-pro rata liquidating distributions allegedly in violation of
our charter and Maryland law.

The plaintiff alleged that a preliminary proxy statement contained
materially misleading statements and omissions and, on that basis, the
plaintiff sought to void any vote taken pursuant thereto.

The Company then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.  In November 2001, the court
granted the motion and dismissed the proxy misrepresentation claim on
the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to plead that it had relied
on the proxy statement to its detriment.  The court also dismissed the
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the corporate
charter on the grounds that those claims could only be asserted
derivatively.  The court, however, granted the plaintiff leave to
replead these claims as derivative claims within 30 days.  The
plaintiff did not replead these claims within the allotted time, which
has now expired.


GOODYEAR CORP: Employees Confer About Bringing Age Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In his 35 years at Goodyear Corp., Paul W. Jones Jr. said, he has
earned three promotions and regular raises.  He felt pride in and
loyalty for the Akron company he joined right out of college as a
chemical engineer, and planned to stay until retirement.   Now he has
learned, like hundreds of his salaried co-workers, that the Company
considers him one of its bottom performers, the Akron Beacon Journal
reports.

Like all these workers, Mr. Jones has been ranked a C employee, a grade
reserved for the bottom 10 percent.  That means that until he pulls
himself into the B group, he will get no raise and could be demoted or
fired if he gets another C this year.

Mr. Jones believes that the Company is trying to weed out the older
workers with the grading system it instituted two years ago.  He is one
of more than 100 Company employees to talk to lawyers in recent months,
discussing their legal rights, and exploring whether they could fight
the Company by alleging age discrimination.

Such a legal fight could mean trouble for the Company.  Several other
companies, including Microsoft and General Electric, have found
themselves forced to defend the same type of grading system in court.
Last year, Ford Motor Co. scrapped its system after 500 workers sued,
alleging age discrimination.  Ford agreed to pay the workers $10.6
million.

The system has been gaining popularity at companies across the country
in recent years, sparking a national debate about whether it is fair
for workers to be held up against their co-workers in performance
evaluations.  Critics say the system undermines teamwork and can punish
otherwise solid performance.  Supporter say the system helps companies
constantly improve and urges workers to do their best, year after year.

Although the systems vary, they generally force supervisors to issue a
certain percentage of high, low and medium grades to workers.  At the
Company, the supervisors are supposed to give the top 10 percent of
their department A's, the middle 80 percent, B's, and the bottom 10
percent, C's.  The grades affect promotions and raises.

The Company denied it is targeting any class of workers with its
system.  It said the system, while similar to Ford's, is not a clone or
a mirror image. "We monitor this program very closely to make sure that
no individual or group of individuals is biased for or against,"
Company spokesman Fred Haymond said.  "We are very careful about that."

The Company said that workers who receive C ratings two years in a row
are not automatically discharged, but they could be "exited" if they
don't show significant improvement.   Another option is to reassign the
C employees to positions better suited to their skills.

A Cleveland lawyer, Steve Bell, said he has talked to about 100
Goodyear workers who have received at least one C.  He said he is
starting to see a pattern of older employees getting lower grades and
being fired.  Mr. Bell said that, without exception, the people we are
talking to are long term Goodyear employees with superb performance
histories, who are now being told they are of no value to the company.

Mr. Bell is inviting C-rated Goodyear employees to a meeting June 15 at
a local hotel to discuss the situation.  The meeting, he said, is
designed to help pool information and see whether there is a basis for
an age-discrimination class action.

At Ford, workers received settlements of between $5,000 and $100,000,
depending on how much they had lost in missed raises and bonuses, said
Michael Pitt, a Detroit-area lawyer who had represented the Ford
workers.  "I think Ford's actions indicated how unwise the grading
system was from a morale standpoint, as well as whether it was really
an effective way to evaluate employees," Mr. Pitt said.


HIFN CO.: $9.5 Million Securities Suit Settlement Reached in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth US District Court for the Northern District of California
granted preliminary approval of a US$9.5 million settlement to a
securities class action against network security and flow
classification market leader HifnT (Nasdaq: HIFN).

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between July 26, 1999 and October 7, 1999, charging that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Subject to final court approval, the case was settled for $9.5 million;
insurance for the company's directors and officers will pay $6.8
million, and the Company will contribute $2.7 million in common stock.

The settlement was achieved without any admission of liability by the
Company or its officers and directors.  The Company continues to deny
any wrongdoing or violation of the securities laws, but it is pleased
to put this litigation behind it.


IDAHO: Residents Oppose State Grass Burning Policy Due To Health Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Idaho residents today filed a class action attacking the
state's grass-burning policy, claiming the practice endangers the
health of thousands, especially those with respiratory conditions.

The suit, filed against the state of Idaho and 79 grass farmers and
seed companies, calls for an immediate end to grass burning. The suit
also calls for the creation of a medical monitoring and education
program to protect Idaho residents confronted with grass burning smoke
every August and September.

The suit, filed in Idaho state court by victims of past years' burning
through their attorneys, Steve Berman and Brent Walton, alleges that
the state's burn policy, which allows grass-seed farmers to burn in
excess of 20,000 acres every year lags far behind other states. In
neighboring Washington, for instance, grass burning has effectively
been outlawed altogether.

Idaho grass-seed farmers use the burns to remove the grass stalk
residue after harvesting. Grass farmers in Washington and Oregon use
other farming practices to remove grass stalk residue while keeping the
air free of pollutants.

"While we intend to present mountains of evidence and expert testimony,
all you need to do is take a deep breath during one of these field
burns to realize the impact," Mr. Berman said. "It is far more than an
inconvenience -- it is literally shortening people's lives with every
breath they take."

The suit cites the case of Alex H., a 10-year-old girl suffering from
cystic fibrosis who cannot tolerate even a minimal level of smoke
pollution. According to medical experts, each time she breathes smoke
from the burning fields, the smoke causes irreparable pulmonary injury
that shortens her life expectancy.

According to Mr. Berman, Alex's mother now takes six weeks unpaid
vacation to protect her daughter from the smoke pollution during
burning season.  "Alex's mom does everything she can, including packing
up and moving the entire family," he noted. "Unfortunately, the smoke
has already done damage, shortening her already abbreviated life
expectancy."

A 58-year-old North Idaho resident, Jeanne Wolcott suffers from chronic
asthma and must hastily leave her home several times a year during
grass-burning season or risk a severe asthma attack, the suit states.
Several times in the past M. Wolcott has been hospitalized for asthma
attacks caused by field-burning smoke inhalation, according to the
suit.

Other plaintiffs in the suit claim to stay locked inside their homes
for several days, closing up windows and doors to find relief from
grass-burning smoke. Others are forced to leave the area during the
nearly two-month-long field-burning window.  "Every time they burn,
grass farmers place thousands of people under involuntary house
arrest," Mr. Berman continued.

According to the suit, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
received more than 1,700 complaints during August and September of
2001. The suit highlights many of the complaints from distressed North
Idaho residents, ranging from "The hospital is filling up with smoke!"
to "This is disgusting, can't breathe, never seen it so bad inside the
house, need to do something, it is killing us."

Experts have noted that exposure to even minimal levels of pollutants
results in increased numbers of emergency room visits and
hospitalizations, increased doctor visits, increased school and work
absences, and decreased physical activities for individuals afflicted
with cystic fibrosis, chronic heart disease or inflammatory airwave
diseases, according to the complaint.

Last year grass-burning farmers released more than 785 tons of
microscopic pollutants into the air, including concentrations of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), proven carcinogens, the
complaint states.

According to Mr. Berman, the complaints and health risks of grass
burning can be avoided.  "Idaho grass farmers are the last to abandon
this outmoded and completely unnecessary clearing method," he added.
"Grass farmers in states with a burning ban have thrived using other
farming techniques, and Idaho farmers can follow suit."

Grass farmers in Washington have increased the overall production of
grass seed and the yields per acre since a strict burning ban was
enacted in 1998, according to the suit. Farmers in Washington and
Oregon use other techniques to remove grass residue from the fields,
including tilling, needle nose or rotary raking, crewcut vacuuming and
bailing.

Seeking to protect those most affected by the grass burning pollutants,
the suit represents individuals with cystic fibrosis, chronic heart
disease or a medically diagnosed inflammatory airway disease such as
asthma or chronic bronchitis who live in Kootenai, Bonner, Benewah and
Spokane Counties, as well as other areas.

For more details, contact Steve Berman by Phone: 206-623-7292 by E-
mail: steve@hagens-berman.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.hagens-berman.com


LIQUID AUDIO: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Acquisition Offers in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio, Inc. faces a consolidated class action pending in
Delaware Chancery Court relating to the Company's response to recent
acquisition offers.  The suit, which were filed on behalf of the
Company's shareholders, names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Gerald W. Kearby,

     (2) Silvia Kessel, and

     (3) Ann L. Winblad

The complaint alleges that defendants had breached their fiduciary
duties owed to Company shareholders in connection with the Company's
response to acquisition offers from Steel Partners II, LLP and an
investor group formed by musicmaker.com, Inc.  The suit seeks, among
other things, a court order barring the Company from adopting or
maintaining measures that would make the Company less attractive as a
takeover candidate or, alternatively, awarding compensatory damages to
the purported plaintiff class.

The Company has not responded to the complaint, nor has the court set a
date for discovery cutoff or trial.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend the action, but there is no assurance concerning the outcome of
either action, or whether either action would have a material effect on
its financial condition or business operations.


LIQUID AUDIO: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions against Liquid Audio, Inc. have been
consolidated into one suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The consolidated suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and three underwriters in its initial public
offering (IPO) and was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between July 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The suit generally alleges that various investment bank underwriters
engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in the IPO and secondary offering of securities.  
The suit brings claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
revealed that the suit was similar to other virtually identical suits
filed in the same court against more than 300 other companies.  The
lawsuit and all other "IPO allocation" securities class actions
currently pending in the Southern District of New York have been
assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

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


MODEM MEDIA: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Modem Media, Inc.
filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The amended suit names as defendant the
Company and:

     (1) GM O'Connell, Chairman,

     (2) Steven Roberts, former Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Robert C. Allen II, Board member, a Managing Director and
         former President,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) BankBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (6) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (7) Nationsbanc Montgomery Securities and

     (8) Banc of America Securities LLC

The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
offering's registration statement and by engaging in manipulative
practices to artificially inflate the price of Company stock in the
after-market subsequent to the IPO.

The Company defendants are named in the amended complaint pursuant to
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements
and manipulative practices.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
states that similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and all such
actions have been included in a single coordinated proceeding.

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.  


NETBANK INC.: Agrees To Settle Suit Over CompuBank Accounts Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NetBank, Inc. agreed to settle a class action complaint pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
arising from the Company's acquisition of deposit accounts from
CompuBank.  The suit alleges claims for:  

     (1) violations of the federal Expedited Funds Availability Act,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) breach of common law duties, and

     (4) conversion

The settlement is pending court approval, and assuming such approval,
the suit would represent a potential loss to or payment by the Company
of approximately $200,000.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of a California federal
court's decision dismissing the class action pending against New
Century Mortgage Corporation.

The suit was commenced in June 2001, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
and seeks rescission, restitution and damages on behalf of the two
plaintiffs, others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public.  

The suit alleges a violation of the Federal Truth in Lending
Act (TILA) and Business Professions Code 17200.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company gave the borrowers the required
three-day notice of their right to rescind before the loan transaction
had technically been consummated.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted on
January 25, 2002.  The judge held that Company had not violated TILA
and dismissed the 17200 claim without prejudice.


NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Suit For Unpaid Overtime in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class action pending against New Century
Financial Corporation and New Century Mortgage Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California,
in Santa Ana.  Former Company employee, Dean Smith, filed the suit in
August 2001, alleging he is owed unpaid overtime and seeking penalties
and damages for other loan officers and himself.

Notices to potential class members were sent in early 2002 and
approximately 50 individuals timely opted in to join the class action.  
The Company labels the suit "without merit," and intends to defend
against the suit vigorously.


NEW CENTURY: GA Court Grants Motion To Stay Suit over RESPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division stayed the class action pending against New Century
Mortgage Corporation.  The suit alleges that payments made to mortgage
brokers, referred to as yield spread premiums, violate the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

The Company filed a motion to stay the action, which the court granted
in mid-April, 2002.  The Company believes the suit lacks merit and
intends to mount a vigorous defense against the suit.


NEW CENTURY: Asks For Dismissal of Suit Over IL State Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation asked the Circuit Court in Cook
County, Chicago, Illinois to dismiss a class action, alleging
unauthorized practice of law and violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

The suit alleges the Company violated the above laws by performing
document preparation services for a fee by non-lawyers, and seeks to
recover the fees charged for the document preparation, compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The court will hear the Company's motion this July.  The Company
vehemently denies the allegations in the suit and states its intent to
vigorously oppose it.


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Oplink
Communications, Inc. filed an amended securities suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
names as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
as well as certain of the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO).

In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws because the Company's IPO registration
statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact
or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be received by,
and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

In August 2001, all of the above-referenced lawsuits were consolidated
for pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.  Judge Scheindlin held an initial
case management conference on September 7, 2001, at which time she
ordered, among other things, that the time for all defendants to
respond to any complaint be postponed until further order of the Court.
Thus, the Company has not been required to answer the complaint, and no
discovery has been served on the Company.

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

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


SPANISH BROADCASTING: Asking NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish Broadcasting Systems, Inc. intends to ask the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a
securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers who acquired
shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus relating to its initial public
offering (IPO) which closed on November 2, 1999.

The suit names as defendants the Company, eight underwriters of the
IPO, two members of the Company's senior management team, one of which
is the Company's Chairman of the Board of Directors, and an additional
director.  The claims being made under the complaint are similar to
claims currently being made under hundreds of suits filed against
companies with recent initial public offerings and their underwriters.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
specifically that the prospectus contained materially false and
misleading statements based on alleged misstatements and/or omissions
of material facts relating to underwriting commissions.  The suit also
alleges Rule 10b-5 fraud violations by the underwriters, but not by the
Company or the individually named defendants.

The Company believes that it has a valid claim against the underwriters
for indemnification in the event that the plaintiffs are awarded
damages as a result of this lawsuit.  Discovery has been stayed while
motions to dismiss the complaint are being prepared.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Arguments Over $145B Tobacco Appeal Proceed in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The tobacco industry is appealing the July 2000 punitive damages award
of $145 billion, granted by a Miami-Dade Circuit Court jury to an
estimated 700,000 sick smokers.  It was the first class action of its
kind to go to trial, and the biggest civil judgment in US history, The
Miami Herald reports.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, Susan and Stanley Rosenblatt, told the appeals
court, the Third District Court of Appeal, that it should let the award
stand so that Florida's ailing smokers, who have been victims of a
continuing fraud for decades, can collect the money.

Philip Morris and four other cigarette maker defendants countered that
the Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Robert Kaye made a serious mistake when he
allowed the smokers to qualify for punitive damages as a class, before
each one had filed suit.  The industry argued that no two smokers'
habits and health problems are alike, therefore, they should not be
allowed to file a claim together for damages.

William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris vice president and associate
general counsel, tossed aside the arguments of plaintiffs' lawyers,
Susan and Stanley Rosenblatt, saying they were "long on rhetoric and
short on legal reasoning."  Mr. Ohlemeyer said, "Courts all across this
country have recognized that (this) type of class action would be
unconstitutional and virtually impossible to finally resolve."

While there are dozens of legal disputes between both sides, the crux
of the appeal revolves around Judge Kaye's certification of the so-
called Engle class, which consists of Floridians who either died or
suffered from illnesses caused by smoking between 1990 and 1999.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, the Rosenblatts, argue that the judge acted
correctly because it was the only way for hundreds of thousands of sick
smokers to challenge the tobacco industry fairly.  "The history of
tobacco litigation reveals that individuals cannot successfully
litigate against the tobacco industry," the Rosenblatts said in their
response.  "Class treatment is necessary to level the playing field."

As a practical matter, legal experts say, it would take decades for
each sick Florida smoker to sue the industry for liability before being
allowed to go after punitive damages collectively.

The Third District Court of Appeal already has gone back and forth on
this issue in the earlier phase of the case called the Engle class
action.  A three-judge panel at first sided with tobacco lawyers,
ruling that damage claims for each smoker should be heard before the
class action.  However, a month later, the same panel reversed itself,
allowing the class case to go forward.

The Florida smokers' case, was watched closely by Wall Street and class
action lawyers in other states.  The Rosenblatts faced overwhelming
odds. Tobacco manufacturers were winning cases nationwide with their
argument that smokers were well aware of the health hazards because of
the warning labels on cigarette packages by the Surgeon General.  
Smokers were responsible for their behavior, tobacco lawyers said.

However, in July 1999, the Rosenblatts changed the course of litigation
history when the Miami-Dade jury found the industry liable for lying to
the public about the addictive nature of nicotine and the harmful
effects of cigarettes.

In April 2000, the jury found the industry's deception had caused
serious injuries to three members of the Engle class, a retired
Gainesville nurse, a retired Orlando businessman and a deceased New
Port Richey woman.  They were awarded $12.7 million in compensatory
damages.

The class action climaxed in July 2000, when the six jurors issued the
$145 billion punitive damages verdict against the five defendants,
Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard and the
Liggett Group of Miami.

"The Engle class fought long and hard and prevailed," the Rosenblatts
concluded in their 256-page response to the tobacco industry's appeal.  
"Judge Kaye's final judgment canvassed the evidence.  His conscience
was shocked by what he heard."

The cigarette makers are expected to file one more response later this
summer, leading to oral arguments before the Third District Court of
Appeal.  The losing side will likely appeal to the Florida Supreme
Court.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: RJ Reynolds Fined $20M For Targeting Teens
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court judge Ronald Prager find RJ Reynolds Tobacco
Company, one of the nation's largest tobacco companies, US$20 million
for running cigarette ads in teen-marketed magazines like Spin, Vibe,
Hot Rod and Rolling Stone, the Associated Press reports.  Judge Prager
ruled that the Company violated an historical 1998 settlement with 46
states preventing large tobacco companies from "taking any action,
directly or indirectly, to target youth."

While not banning advertising, the judge ordered the Company to take
"reasonable measures" to reduce teenage exposure to tobacco adds to a
level "substantially lower" than its reach toward adults.  Judge Prager
reasoned that the Company started an aggressive marketing campaign to
regain lost market share, "even though the likely effect of these
efforts was to cause significant exposure to youth."

"It was, or should have been, apparent to the skillful and bright
people who managed RJR's multimillion-dollar, sophisticated print
advertising campaign that youth were exposed to tobacco advertising at
levels substantially similar to targeted adult smokers," the judge said
in his ruling.

The Company has denied the allegations, and said it would appeal and
will seek a stay of Judge Prager's ruling.  The Company also added the
ruling was a form of censorship.  "Today's decision might be
politically correct but it disregarded the facts, the law, the First
Amendment and the relevant provisions" of the nationwide tobacco
settlement, Reynolds spokesman Tommy Payne told Associated Press.

Mr. Payne complained that the ruling imposed an "illogical double
standard" in California because magazines that are "too youthful" for
Camel cigarettes are still acceptable forums for beer, wine, liquor and
R-rated movies.

The attorney general's office said it would monitor the Company's
magazine advertising to ensure it complies with the judge's order.  
"When hundreds of your customers die every, the only way to stay in
business is to hook new ones," Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a
statement.  "But targeting children in your quest for new consumers is
unlawful, shameful and will not be tolerated in California."


* Catholic Church Faces Mass of Suits Alleging Sexual Abuse by Priests   
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least 300 civil lawsuits accusing priests of sex abuse have been
filed in 16 states since January of this year, when the case of a
pedophile priest in Boston spurred claims against Roman Catholic
dioceses across America, a nationwide review by The Associated Press
found.

Lawyers say the rush of litigation is truly dramatic for such a short
time, and that several hundred more cases are being informally mediated
between dioceses and accusers.  That ensures that American bishops will
remain under enormous legal and financial pressure from the scandal
even after they overhaul their abuse policy in a meeting starting
Thursday in Dallas.

"It's off the charts," said Pat Schlitz, a Minnesota attorney who has
defended dioceses against hundreds of abuse claims.  Daniel Holden,
attorney for the Orange County, California Diocese, said it would take
a couple of years for these cases alone to be resolved, and more
certainly will be filed in the coming months.  New York attorney
Michael Dowd said he was still preparing about 60 molestation claims
against dioceses in his area.

Chicago Cardinal Francis George may sell the mansion where the city's
archbishops have lived for more than a century, acknowledging some of
the proceeds could be used to pay legal fees in abuse cases.

Almost 250 of the nation's more than 46,000 Roman Catholic priests have
either been dismissed from their duties or have resigned since the
scandal began in January.  Beyond the toll in staff and credibility,
the financial cost of these cases has never been fully calculated.  
Estimates of what the church has paid out since the first major
scandals broke in the `80s, range from about $300 million to $1
billion, The Associated Press reports.

AP reporters across the country interviewed lawyers and reviewed court
documents last week to count the number of abuse lawsuits across the
nation.  The tally does not include a handful of cases alleging
misconduct by lay church workers.  Dioceses in Kentucky face the most
lawsuits, 122, with more than a third involving claims against one
priest, Father Louis E. Miller, who denies any wrongdoing.  Three other
suits allege abuse by Lexington Bishop Kendrick Williams, while he was
a Louisville priest.  He has denied any wrongdoing.

At least 73 suits have been filed in Massachusetts, where some of the
most notorious abuse cases, involving former priest John Geoghan and
Father Paul Shanley, have been winding through the courts.  An
additional 41 claims have been made in New Hampshire, where Bishop John
McCormack has been under scrutiny for his former role in supervising
accused priests in Boston and for his response to abuse claims when he
became head of the Manchester Diocese.  Another 25 additional lawsuits
have been filed in California.

In states where no new claims have been made, many old lawsuits are
pending.  The Diocese of Providence, RI, for example, is a defendant
in 38 abuse lawsuits filed before January.  Some of the newer lawsuits
have spilled over into other states. Wisconsin has no recent claims,
but a suit filed this year in California, named the Milwaukee
Archdiocese as a defendant.

Intense media coverage of the abuse scandal is partly responsible for
the large number of lawsuits, the lawyers say.  "The volume of calls
has increased dramatically," said attorney Darrell Papillon of Baton
Rouge, LA.  "I truly am talking to someone every day."

Lawyers on both sides have acknowledged that some people may be coming
forward with false claims, but Pat Schlitz, the Minnesota attorney who
has defended dioceses against hundreds of abuse claims, said he
believes the number of fake allegations likely is small.

Mr. Schlitz does believer, however, that the scandal has brought forth
what he calls "marginal claims, people who may not have been sexually
abused, but experienced some misconduct by priests in the past and had
been willing to let it go before they learned how bishops protected
abusive clergy."

"When I started doing this work, I would often point out to bishops
that most victims would come forward first to the church and would only
turn to the court system if the church did not act responsibly," Mr.
Schlitz said.  "There is a lot they can do to prevent claims from
turning into lawsuits."

                   New Securities Fraud Cases    

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Holzer & Holzer Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of purchasers of Adelphia Business Solutions, Inc. (Pink
Sheets:ABIZQ) common stock during the period between January 6, 2000
and March 27, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) John J. Rigas, Chairman of the Board of Directors,

     (2) Michael J. Rigas, Vice Chairman, Secretary and Director,

     (3) Timothy J. Rigas, Vice Chairman, CFO, Treasurer and Director,
         and

     (4) James P. Rigas, Vice Chairman, CEO, President and Director

The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business and financial condition.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the financial
condition and results of the Company during the class period.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that
because of the deceptive sales practices instituted by or approved of
by the defendants, the Company reported artificially inflated line
counts (lines that it had sold to customers).

The suit alleges that defendants also committed the Company to pay
overhead expenses to Adelphia Communications Corp. (Which was also
controlled by the Defendants) without maintaining proper accounting
records of these expenses.  Additionally, the complaint alleges that
throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose in excess of
$2 billion of off-balance sheet liabilities for Adelphia Communications
Corp.

Due to the Company's dependence on the defendants and Adelphia
Communications Corp., the complaint alleges that the off-balance sheet
liabilities should have been disclosed to Company shareholders during
the class period.

The complaint further alleges that on March 1, 2002, the Company
announced that it would not make an interest payment of $15.3 million
on certain secured notes of the Company and would be in default.  The
complaint alleges that on March 27, 2002, Adelphia Communications
Corporation announced its financial results and that it had entered
into these off-balance sheet financing arrangements which obligated
Adelphia Communications for approximately $2.3 billion in debts,
together with Highland Holdings, an entity also controlled by the
Defendants.

The complaint alleges that on that same day, March 27, the Company
announced that it had filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

For more details, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr. by Phone: 404-847-0085
if in Atlanta or 888-508-6832 if outside Atlanta or by E-mail:
michaelfisteljr@msn.com


APPLIED DIGITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired Applied Digital Solutions, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ADSXE) securities between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Plaintiff complains of a fraudulent scheme and deceptive course of
business that injured purchasers of Company stock during the class
period.  On February 11, 2000, the first day of the class period,
defendants were in possession of materially adverse information
concerning the lack of proper accounting controls and improper revenue
recognition practices at certain of its subsidiaries.

After they became aware of improper accounting practices at its
subsidiaries, defendants failed to disclose the information to
investors for more than two years.

On April 18, 2002, the Company filed a Form 8-K (8-K) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing 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 in the
8-K that the subsidiary "did not have proper restrictions to vendor
access within its accounts payable system."

Additionally, the 8-K disclosed that during the year ended December 31,
2000, a second subsidiary of the Company "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 its subsidiaries,
and that the Company had known about the problems and failed to
disclose them to investors for more than two years, drove Company stock
down forty percent (40%) on April 18, 2002, the same day that this
information was disclosed in the Company's 8-K.

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
thirty percent (30%) in one day.

The same day, in after-hours trading, Company stock dropped another ten
percent, leaving the Company's shares prices approximately forty
percent (40%) lower than the previous day's close.

Defendants' materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the accounting practices at one of the Company's
subsidiaries, revenue the Company claimed it was receiving from another
of its subsidiaries and false and misleading statements concerning its
VeriChip technology drove Company stock price to a class period high of
$16.25 on March 6, 2000.

On September 21, 2001, the Company's stock price had fallen to $.15
cents per share only seven months before defendants corrected the
publicly disseminated, materially false and misleading statements about
its subsidiaries.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Mail: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: ADSXE@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com  


APPLIED DIGITAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ADSXE) publicly traded securities during the period between
February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002, inclusive.

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

According to the suit, 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 of the Company "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 its 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 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


APPLIED DIGITAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Applied Digital
Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADSXE) securities between February 11, 2000 and
May 10, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The suit also names as defendant Richard
J. Sullivan.

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

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.pivenlaw.com


APPLIED DIGITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Applied Digital
Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSXE) between February 11, 2000, and May 10,
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, 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 of the Company "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 Company 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 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) 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


DUKE ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action against Duke
Energy Corporation (NYSE:DUK) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Company securities during the period from July 22, 1999
and May 17, 2002, inclusive.

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

The complaint also alleges, that during the class period, the
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues
and financial performance.

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

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

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

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

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

Following this announcement, shares of the Company fell $1.18 per share
to close at $33.52 per share, after reaching a split-adjusted class
period high of $44.97 on November 30, 2000.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by Phone:
800-889-3701 by E-mail: jhaas@abbeygardy.com or
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com


DUKE ENERGY: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Duke
Energy Corporation (NYSE: DUK) and certain of its principal officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the Company's common stock between July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, throughout the class period, as
alleged in the suit, defendants issued numerous statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the Company's
increasing revenues and financial performance.

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

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

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

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

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

Following this announcement, and the disclosure of inquiries by both
the Federal Regulatory Commission and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the market price of Company stock fell to $30.05 per share,
after reaching a split-adjusted class period high of $44.97 on November
30, 2000.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


DYNEGY INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against Dynegy,
Inc. (NYSE:DYN), and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between August 14,
2001 and April 24, 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 David C. Katz, Mark D. Smilow, and/or James
E. Tullman by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600,
New York NY 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com


DYNEGY INC.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Dynegy,
Inc. (NYSE: DYN) and certain of its senior officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas that reflects
recent developments and includes all of those persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from April 17, 2002 through May 15, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint 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, the Company 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 the Company
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 information, 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   


EDISON SCHOOLS: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Edison Schools, Inc.
securities (Nasdaq:EDSN) between November 11, 1999 through May 14,
2002, both dates inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) Christopher Whittle,

     (2) Adam Feild, and

     (3) Christopher Cerf

The suit alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.

Throughout the class period, the Company issued numerous quarterly
press releases reporting its supposedly growing revenue stream and
increasing income.  Such representations were repeated in reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

According to the complaint, these representations were materially false
and misleading because the Company improperly recognized as revenue
salaries paid by school districts directly to teachers in the Company.  
Accordingly, the complaint charges, the Company's revenues and other
financial data reported throughout the class period were materially
false and misleading.

On May 14, 2002, the Company revealed that it had been the subject of
an SEC investigation and has entered into a settlement with the SEC
under which it agreed to reclassify the revenues that the Company had
reported for numerous quarters.  At the time of the disclosure, the
common stock of the Company was trading at $1.50 to $2 per share, after
reaching a class period high of $36.75 per share.

For more information, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.


EXELON CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC) between
April 24, 2001 and September 27, 2001, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
against the Company and:

     (1) Corbin A. McNeill (Co-CEO and Chairman),

     (2) John W. Rowe (Co-CEO and President) and

     (3) Ruth Ann Gillis (CFO)

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between April 24, 2001 and September 27, 2001.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company repeatedly issued
statements concerning the strength of its operations and that its
business was adequately immunized from problems that plagued its
competitors.  The Company also repeatedly assured the market that it
would meet or beat its $4.50 per share earnings projection for 2001.

The complaint alleges that these statements were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the
investments in telecommunications companies held by the Company's
Enterprises unit were plunging in value at a rapid pace such that
Enterprises could not and would not meaningfully contribute to the
Company's financial results.  In fact, the Company was carrying tens of
millions of dollars of impaired investments on its financial
statements.

The complaint further alleges that InfraSource, the Company'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 this
announcement, the Company's common stock 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 Neil Rothstein and David R. Scott by Phone:
800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
drscott@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scott-scott.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Halliburton
Company (NYSE: HAL) between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company violated 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
through 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 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 it s accounting for cost overruns.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross by Mail:
1515 Locust Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
800-849-3120


KNIGHT TRADING: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of Knight Trading Group, Inc.
(Nasdaq:NITE) between February 29, 2000 and June 3, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that:

     (1) defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of
         materially false and misleading statements regarding the
         nature of the Company's trading practices; and

     (2) revenues and earnings caused the Company's stock price to
         become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or 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.


MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz 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 between May 12, 1999 and November 9, 2000 inclusive,
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former primary internet
company analyst Henry Blodget for violations of Federal securities
laws.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by the issuance of analyst reports regarding 24/7 which
recommended the purchase of 24/7 common stock and which set price
targets for 24/7 common stock without any reasonable factual basis.

Furthermore, when issuing their 24/7 reports, defendants failed to
disclose significant, material conflicts of interest in their use of
Blodget's reputation and his 24/7 analyst reports to obtain investment
banking business for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their 24/7 reports, in which they were
recommending the purchase of 24/7 stock, defendants failed to disclose
material, non-public, adverse information which they possessed about
24/7 as well as their true opinion about the valuation of 24/7.

For more details, contact Fred T. Isquith, Michael Miske, George Peters
or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to 24/7.  


MERRILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Internet
Capital Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICGE) between the period of August 30,
1999 through November 8, 2000, against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and
its Internet analyst Henry Blodget.

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC is involved in other cases
against Merrill Lynch and Blodget on behalf of purchasers of Infospace,
Excite@Home, Aether Systems, and 24/7 Real Media, Inc.

The suit alleges that to maintain and enhance Merrill Lynch's
investment banking relationships with ICGE, defendants issued analyst
reports with positive ratings on ICGE which were materially misleading
as they are inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private
adverse assessments of ICGE.

For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short-term
accumulate, long-term buy rating on ICGE despite their internal e-mails
that there was no hopeful news to relate and that they saw nothing that
will turn this around near-term.

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


MUTUAL RISK: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, 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. (OTC
Pink Sheets: MLRMF) (formerly traded NYSE: MM) publicly traded
securities during the period between February 16, 2000 and April 2,
2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that during the class period, 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 the Company's 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 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: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA launched a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Mutual Risk Management,
Ltd. (NYSE:MM) (Pink Sheets:MLRMF) securities between February 16, 2000
and April 2, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Rabin & Peckel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Peregrine Systems, Inc.
common stock (Nasdaq:PRGN) between July 21, 1999 and May 22, 2002, both
dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Stephen P. Gardner,

     (2) Matthew C. Gless, and

     (3) Arthur Andersen LLP

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, improperly
accounting for over $100 million by booking revenue from indirect sales
channels, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP), thereby leading to a material overstatement of the Company's
revenues.

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

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

For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone:
800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


RAYMOND JAMES: Two Firms Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. WI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mamalakis & Baldwin and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of all clients of broker Donna Vogt
of Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. who purchased the Grand Prix
Fund (Nasdaq:GPFFX) (Nasdaq:GPFCX), the Oppenheimer MidCap Fund
(Nasdaq:OMDBX) and the Van Kampen Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:ACEMX)
(Nasdaq: ACEFX) between April 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Wisconsin, against defendants:

     (1) Donna Vogt,

     (2) Raymond James Financial, Inc. and

     (3) Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by exposing the clients of Ms. Vogt, a broker with the Company to
significant and unreasonable investment risks which were inappropriate
for their portfolios.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants
deceptively and systematically recommended non-diversified portfolios
of aggressive growth equity mutual funds that concentrated
substantially all portfolio risks into a single segment of the economy,
in recommending to Ms. Vogt's clients that they purchase one or more of
the these funds:

     (i) the Grand Prix Fund,

    (ii) the Oppenheimer MidCap Fund and

   (iii) the Van Kampen Emerging Growth Fund.

For more details, contact R. Timothy Muth by Mail: Reinhart Boerner Van
Deuren s.c., 1000 North Water Street, Suite 2100, Milwaukee, WI 53202
or P. O. Box 2965 Milwaukee, WI 53201-2965 by Phone: 414-298-8210 or
contact Emanuel Mamalakis by Mail: Mamalakis & Baldwin, 633 West
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 607, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 or by Phone:
414-224-0300


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Universal Access, Inc. or Universal Access Global Holdings, Inc.
(Nasdaq:UAXS) between May 10, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Patrick C. Shutt, CEO and Chairman,

     (2) Robert M. Brown, CFO,

     (3) Robert E. Rainone, Jr., President of Global Operations for
         the Company,

     (4) George A. King, President of Client Services,

     (5) Robert J. Pommer, Vice Chairman,

     (6) Scott D. Fehlan, General Counsel and Secretary and

     (7) Paolo Guidi, Director

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

According to the allegations, the Company, an independent provider of
network infrastructure services that facilitate the interconnection of
communications networks between disparate and competing service
providers, and defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's
adoption of a new business model and the attendant and material risks
facing the Company as a result.

Additionally, it has been alleged that the Company issued financial
statements that violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by
improperly recording revenue for contingent contracts.  It has also
been alleged that the Company improperly recognized revenue for
"capacity swaps" with other communications companies, which had no real
business purpose and artificially inflated its reported revenues.

For more detail, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.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  * * *